canon_searchSearch defined terms and reference tables across all canon sites (options, fixed income, quants, PE, M&A, private credit, venture, hedge funds). Returns ranked hits with a citable url and the JSON source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search phrase, e.g. "modified duration" or "option pool shuffle" | |
| site | No | Restrict to one site | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to discuss mutation or scope. It adds useful output behavior by stating that results are 'ranked hits' with 'a citable url and the JSON source', which is valuable since there is no output schema.
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?
Two sentences carry a precise scope, a domain list, and the return shape with no filler. Every clause adds information an agent needs, and the description is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 read-only search tool with clear parameters and no complex side effects, the description covers the important context: what is searched, where, and what is returned. It could add explicit alternative-tool routing or edge-case behavior like empty results, but those are not critical for correct invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 67%, with q and site described; limit lacks a semantic description. The description adds meaning by clarifying that omitting site searches 'all canon sites', but it does not explain the limit parameter or any ranking details beyond the schema. This is adequate but not deeply enriched.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search defined terms and reference tables across all canon sites', which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also lists the domains covered, distinguishing it from more specific sibling tools like canon_get_entry or canon_sites, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a broad search across canon sites is needed, as opposed to retrieving a specific entry. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for narrower lookups, so the guidance is mostly implied rather than direct.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct job: searching, fetching entries, mapping entities, running formulas, batching computations, verifying receipts, citing, listing sites, monitoring changes, and looking up regulatory thresholds. Even the related compute/batch/verify tools are cleanly separated by single vs. batch execution and verification responsibility.
All tools share the canon_ prefix and use lowercase snake_case, which makes the set feel consistent and predictable. However, the suffixes mix bare resource nouns (canon_sites, canon_thresholds, canon_entity) with verb phrases (canon_describe_formula, canon_list_formulas, canon_get_entry), so the naming convention is not perfectly uniform.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal range for a reference-and-computation API, and each tool covers a distinct capability without redundancy. The count feels proportionate to the breadth of the finance canon domain.
The surface is complete for a read-only reference service: search, entry retrieval, entity resolution, contract lookup, formula inspection, computation, batch execution, receipt verification, citations, change monitoring, site stats, and regulatory thresholds. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations.