fahali-mcp

fahali_resolve_instrument

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve tickers to canonical instrument identities with asset class, venue, quote currency, and session, and disambiguate ambiguous crypto-pair and listed-security tickers.

Instructions

Resolve a ticker to canonical identity: canonicalId, displayName, assetClass, venue, quote currency, session. Call it when a response returns resolutionState 'ambiguous'. FETH, FBTC, GBTC and ABTC are ETFs that parse as crypto pairs. A bare crypto base (BTC) resolves to its pair (BTCUSDT); a security sharing the ticker is named in symbolResolutions — pass assetClass 'equity' for it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Optional maximum rows per projectable collection. Audit has no MCP projection cap; brief defaults to 3 and standard to 12.
`since`	No	Optional lower timestamp bound for returned row collections.
`detail`	No	Response depth. audit is the full-fidelity default; brief and standard are explicit compact projections.	audit
`symbol`	No	A single ticker, such as NVDA, GBTC or BTCUSDT.
`symbols`	No
`assetClass`	No	Optional. 'equity' or 'etf' resolves a ticker shared by a crypto asset and a listed security (e.g. BTC) as the security; omitted, a bare crypto base resolves to its crypto pair.
`include_withheld`	No	Include full withheld-row detail. Defaults true with audit; explicitly set false only for a compact projection.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asOf`	No
`auth`	No	Credential lifetime visible to the caller. OAuth secondsRemaining lets an autonomous agent refresh before a multi-call workflow is interrupted.
`claim`	No	Fahali dictionary claim (shared/fahaliDictionary.ts). Read `kind` FIRST: 'abstention' means no assertion was made and `reason` says why — never read an abstention as a neutral or zero result. `basis` says what the claim rests on. Absent or null means this response path does not yet emit a claim; treat that as unknown, not as agreement.
`scope`	No
`status`	Yes
`absence`	No	Why no actionable finding is present: measured_empty, user_empty, no_coverage, source_unverified, stale, withheld, source_error, auth_failure, or entitlement_required.
`decision`	No
`conflicts`	No
`dataState`	No
`mcpStatus`	No	Normalized MCP result status. The endpoint's original status vocabulary remains in `status` and `sourceStatus`.
`requestId`	No
`requested`	No
`unresolved`	No	Symbols Fahali does not list. Distinct from a reference that failed to load — read referenceHealth.loaded.
`claimPolicy`	No	Typed constraints for safe use. Metadata, not a prompt or instruction channel.
`instruments`	Yes
`nextActions`	No	Registry-validated follow-up calls. Missing tools, invalid arguments, unresolved placeholders, and disabled tools are omitted.
`sourceError`	No	The upstream endpoint's exact error text/code before normalization, when one was present.
`sourceScope`	No
`sourceStatus`	No	The upstream endpoint's exact status before the MCP envelope normalizes transport success/error.
`agentBriefing`	No	Audit-only narrative projection. Present only when detail='audit'; compact responses do not duplicate structured data as prose.
`claimValidity`	No	Validity of the selected binding claim only, calculated after filtering, projection and row selection. Sibling rows cannot determine it.
`responseState`	No
`schemaVersion`	No
`sourceDecision`	No
`symbolCoverage`	No	Conservation ledger satisfying requested = returned + withheld + notReturned for requested-symbol calls.
`evidenceQuality`	No
`referenceHealth`	No
`responseControl`	No
`sourceDataState`	No	The upstream endpoint's exact data-state value before endpoint-aware classification.
`recordMatchReason`	No	Why matchedTrackRecord is present or null. A null record is never evidence of safety or engine failure.
`symbolResolutions`	No	Every canonicalisation, disclosed: what was asked, the instrument that answered, and any listed security sharing the ticker (equityAlternative, with its own identity).
`matchedTrackRecord`	No	A judged record only when engine, horizon, regime/instrument class, and claim family match this response. `state` is one of: `measured` (a stratum cleared the publishability gate — `stratum` carries engine, horizon tier, bar regime, recall, precision, base rate, base-rate lift, median lead hours, effective sample, warned events and the measurement date); `withheld` (the gate ran and refused — `reason` says why, in words); `unavailable` (the record could not be read at all — an infrastructure failure that says nothing about the record). It is ONE stratum selected by recall, never a platform-wide accuracy. Null means no exact record match; read recordMatchReason.
`confidenceSemantics`	No	Every confidence-bearing value with its score type, scale, calibration status, and probability flag.
`decisionEligibility`	No	Fail-closed binding-authority policy. WITHHELD means source evidence remains available for audit while normalized direction, actionability and execution fields are revoked.
`directionEligibility`	No	Current market-direction eligibility. Direction is authorized only by an exact, eligible producer stratum (canonical_verdict, canonical_symbol_verdict, committee_verdict) — read bindingAuthority to see which one bound. Widening WHO may bind did not weaken WHAT binding requires: the named producer must still hold a matching horizon/class/family record on a verified-only judged population, so an authority without a record still cannot bind.
`executionEligibility`	No	Fail-closed execution boundary. Portfolio monitoring tools always return WITHHELD with MONITOR_ONLY_NO_EXECUTION_AUTHORITY while Fahali has no capital path.
`monitoringEligibility`	No	Current portfolio-monitoring validity based on captured identity, freshness, integrity, and the caller-supplied monitoring policy. ELIGIBLE authorizes observation/delivery only, never financial action.
`sourceEvidenceQuality`	No
`currentActionEligibility`	No	Current eligibility of an immutable historical portfolio verdict. It never mutates the stored judgment being replayed.
`sourceConfidenceSemantics`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.28.1Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real domain behavior: ambiguous tickers surface a symbolResolutions field, bare crypto bases resolve to their pair, and specific ETF tickers (FETH, FBTC, GBTC, ABTC) parse as crypto pairs. It does not explain what the collection params (limit/since/detail) mean in the context of a resolver, which is the remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, then the trigger, then the two edge cases. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the ticker-list sentence is slightly packed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema and annotations relieve it of explaining returns and safety, and it covers the main ambiguity case well. However, for a 7-parameter tool it never mentions batch resolution via `symbols` (up to 100 tickers) or how the audit/brief/standard projections relate to a resolution response, leaving a notable behavioral blind spot.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents assetClass's enum and resolution semantics almost verbatim; the description largely restates that rather than adding syntax or edge cases. The batch-capable `symbols` parameter is never addressed, and limit/since/detail get no tool-specific meaning in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource ('Resolve a ticker to canonical identity') followed by the exact fields returned (canonicalId, displayName, assetClass, venue, quote currency, session). No sibling tool in the list performs symbol resolution, and the description makes that unique role unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger — 'Call it when a response returns resolutionState ambiguous' — plus a concrete disambiguation recipe (pass assetClass 'equity' when a security shares the ticker). It stops short of stating when not to call (e.g. unambiguous tickers), but the condition is clear enough to act on.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server