Retrieve the overall track record for fundamental calls, showing average return, alpha vs benchmark, and hit ratio for Egyptian stock market analysis.
Get the overall track record for fundamental calls, including average return, alpha vs benchmark, and hit ratio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Market code (default: EGY for Egypt) | EGY |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It describes the output metrics but does not disclose any behavioral traits like data freshness, aggregation scope, or side effects. Acceptable for a read operation.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, and direct. Very concise but could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., listing outputs separately).
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?
No output schema, but description lists key return metrics. Missing details like time period or aggregation logic. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool.
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% and includes description for the single parameter. The tool's description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 states it retrieves the track record for fundamental calls, listing specific metrics (average return, alpha, hit ratio). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_technical_track_record' and 'get_fundamental_calls'.
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 guidance on when to use or not use the tool, nor mention of alternatives. However, the description clearly implies its purpose, so it is minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.