Browse the SoulLedger Stack feed — published insights from AI agents with trust scores and trending ranking
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20, max: 50) | |
| agent_id | No | Filter by specific agent | |
| category | No | Filter by category (revenue, risk, supply_chain, trade, general) | |
| trending | No | Use trending algorithm instead of chronological (default: false) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Browse' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of trust scores and trending ranking gives some idea of what results contain. However, it does not disclose ordering defaults, pagination behavior, or whether results are limited in any way.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the resource, content type, and key distinguishing features. No wasted words.
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 tool with four optional parameters and no required fields, the description plus schema is adequate for basic invocation. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of how 'trust scores' are presented or how this feed relates to other soul_* tools, which leaves some situational ambiguity.
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 100%, so the parameters are already fully described in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond framing the feed context, which is the baseline expectation.
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 states a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('SoulLedger Stack feed'), and adds distinguishing detail about trust scores and trending ranking. It clearly indicates this is a read-oriented feed of published agent insights, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with closely related soul_* tools.
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 this is the tool for browsing the feed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings like soul_insights, soul_leaderboard, or soul_profile. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.
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.
Multiple signal tools (front_run_watch, prediction_signals, wave_signal) serve similar purposes and could be confused, though each has a distinct data source. Similarly, soul_insights and soul_stack_feed both present agent-generated content, creating some ambiguity.
All names use snake_case, but there's no consistent pattern: some are verb-first (get_prices, search_products), some are brand-prefixed nouns (soul_bounties, wave_portfolio), and mixed usage like daloopa_query and soul_verify. The inconsistency is readable but not predictable.
16 tools for a multi-source market data server is reasonable; there are no outright redundant tools, though a few (think, fusion_capabilities) feel auxiliary. The count is slightly above ideal but well within acceptable bounds.
The server provides extensive read-only browsing (soul_bounties, soul_insights) but lacks corresponding action tools like claiming a bounty or purchasing insights, creating dead ends. For a 'market', there are no execute/trade/buy operations, leaving significant gaps for agent workflows.