Live get_rotation: sector + macro X/SPY leadership states (GO / HOLDING / TURNING / OUT) recomputed on the intraday board - the rotation loop primitive, priced to be polled. Read reading before acting: confirmed rotation is LATE for a pullback buyer. No wallet? get_rotation is the same read, free, one market day delayed. $0.005 USDC per call (x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses cost ($0.005 USDC per call via x402), polling-friendly design, and the semantic caveat that confirmed rotation is late for pullback buyers. It does not mention response format or rate limits, but for a simple read-only polling tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 three sentences with no filler: it leads with the core output, then adds a critical usage caveat, then provides the free alternative and cost. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description conveys the core return semantics by listing the four states and referencing the `reading` field. It also includes cost, polling nature, and the delayed alternative. It does not detail the full response envelope, but for a zero-parameter polling tool it is largely complete.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 states the tool's function: it returns live sector and macro X/SPY leadership states (GO / HOLDING / TURNING / OUT) recomputed intraday. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_rotation by emphasizing 'Live' and contrasting with the 'one market day 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?
Provides clear usage context: it is priced to be polled, and users without a wallet should use get_rotation instead. It also gives a behavioral caution about reading `reading` before acting because confirmed rotation is late for pullback buyers. It stops short of explicitly enumerating when not to use it, but the alternative is named.
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.
