Live intraday get_stock_read: one stock's current-session scores and entry state. No wallet? get_stock_read is free, one market day delayed. Includes the live coil read (coil_score / coil_kind / coil_note). $0.005 USDC per call (x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Ticker, e.g. NVDA |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that data is live intraday, that the call costs $0.005 USDC via x402, and that it includes specific coil fields. It implies wallet/payment requirements through the 'No wallet?' phrasing, though it could be more direct about a wallet being required and about any failure behavior without one.
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 core purpose, then delivery/alternative guidance, then the included coil read and pricing. Each sentence carries distinct information. A minor issue is the slightly awkward 'Live intraday get_stock_read' phrasing, but it does not waste space.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives essential context: scope, price, and the alternative when no wallet is available. However, it does not clarify what 'entry state' means or describe the overall return structure beyond the coil fields, so an agent is left to infer the output shape.
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 schema already documents the only parameter, symbol, with the example 'NVDA', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond confirming the tool is for one stock; it does not add format details, validation rules, or market-hours context.
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_stock_read, scoped to one stock's current-session scores and entry state. It distinguishes itself from its main sibling by name and by explicitly including the live coil read, so an agent can tell it apart from the many other live variants.
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 provides explicit guidance: if the user has no wallet, use get_stock_read instead because it is free but one market day delayed. This contrasts real-time paid data with delayed free data and names the alternative, making the selection condition clear.
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.
