smart_moneyComposite smart-money signal for a US stock: aggregates SEC Form-4 insider buys, congressional trades, 13F institutional flow, and analyst consensus into one accumulation/distribution signal + conviction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | US stock ticker, e.g. NVDA. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / ticker / defaultRemoved value: -""Input schema / properties / ticker / descriptionAdded value: +"US stock ticker, e.g. NVDA."Input schema / properties / ticker / maxLengthAdded value: +8Input schema / properties / ticker / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "ticker"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses data provenance (SEC filings, congressional disclosures, 13F) which annotations cannot convey, but says nothing about data freshness, latency, or how sources are weighted when they conflict.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and then lists the aggregated sources and the output. No filler and no redundancy.
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 one-parameter read-only computed signal with no output schema, the description conveys both the inputs and the return shape (accumulation/distribution signal + conviction). Missing only edge-case behavior, e.g. what happens for non-US or thinly covered tickers.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single ticker parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. It adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Composite smart-money signal for a US stock') and enumerates the exact inputs aggregated (Form-4 insider buys, congressional trades, 13F flow, analyst consensus) plus the output shape. It is clear on its own, but gives no signal about how it differs from the sibling 'equity_signal', which sounds adjacent.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative sibling tool. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the description's content.
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.