snacs_dilution_asof_getPoint-in-time forensic state for a covered ticker as of a date (YYYY-MM-DD): the share checkpoint effective on/before it, facilities in force, events up to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | Historical date YYYY-MM-DD; state as it stood on that day (no lookahead bias). | |
| ticker | Yes | U.S. ticker symbol, e.g. GPUS. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered by structured data. The description adds useful temporal context ('effective on/before', 'events up to it') but doesn't clarify what 'covered ticker' means or what happens if no checkpoint exists on/before the date.
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 a single compact sentence with a colon-delimited list. Every element earns its place—ticker scope, as-of date, and three state components—with no redundant wording.
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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately captures the core function and temporal semantics. The only minor gap is the undefined 'covered ticker' restriction, but overall it is complete for its complexity.
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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions (ticker format and as_of with no-lookahead-bias guarantee). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a point-in-time forensic state for a covered ticker, listing the included components (share checkpoint, facilities, events). It distinguishes from current-state tools by emphasizing 'as of' and temporal boundaries, though it lacks an explicit verb and direct sibling comparison.
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?
No explicit usage guidelines are provided. The 'point-in-time' and 'as of' language implies historical/forensic use, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over snacs_dilution_get or granular endpoints, nor any exclusions or alternatives.
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.