Live intraday get_morning_brief: regime, top-5 candidates, movers and the crypto gate from the current session in one call. No wallet? get_morning_brief is free, one market day delayed. Includes the live awareness read (leaders, money flows, coiled setups, coverage). $0.02 USDC per call (x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the live intraday nature, the contents of the response, the wallet/payment requirement via 'No wallet? get_morning_brief is free,' and the explicit $0.02 USDC per-call cost via x402. It stops short of describing failure modes or precise output format, but for a read-style 0-parameter tool the key behaviors are well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Each sentence adds useful information: contents, free alternative, included awareness read, and cost. It is slightly choppy and repeats 'get_morning_brief,' but no sentence is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: what data is included, live vs. delayed, cost, and the free alternative. It could add explicit wallet-required wording and a note on expected response shape, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to decide and call correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are largely moot and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what the single call returns, making it clear that no parameters are needed to access this bundled live brief.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this as the live intraday version of get_morning_brief and enumerates its contents: regime, top-5 candidates, movers, crypto gate, and a live awareness read. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_morning_brief by emphasizing 'live' and 'current session' versus the delayed free version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly contrasts with get_morning_brief: 'No wallet? get_morning_brief is free, one market day delayed,' making the when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use decision explicit. The 'current session' wording clarifies that this tool is for live intraday needs, while the paid/free distinction guides budget-aware choices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most market-data and storefront tools are cleanly scoped, but there is meaningful overlap: get_full_board and get_engine_feed are near-duplicates, get_buy_list overlaps with get_morning_brief's candidate list, and get_orders / get_order_status are identical NotOffered stubs. The free/live twin pairs are clearly labeled so agents can distinguish latency/payment intent, but the sheer number of related reads creates selection friction.
The large get_* data family is very predictable (get_stock_read, get_stock_read_live, get_rotation, get_rotation_live), and storefront ools use clear verb_noun actions (add_to_cart, remove_from_cart, save_memory). Minor deviations like checkout_handoff and the get_live_setup / get_live_rules naming (which could be misread as *_live twins) keep it from a perfect score.
46 tools is well abovethe 25+ threshold for a coherent toset; at leat13 are direc live twins of free readable plus a 14-tool storefont/memory subdomain. Many could be consoliated into ingle tools with a delay/live param or a single storefront resource, making the surface feel bloated for agents.
The market-data surface is very comphehensive: regime, buy-list, hold-state, rotation, sector, stock, crypto day/night/trend/setups, full board, archived board, changes, and engine-feed coverage leave few dead ends for the stated trading-intelligence purpose. Storefont is adequate but has minor acknowledged gaps—orders/order-status are NotOffered stubs and session memories have no update/delete—so it is not a perfect 5.
