Automatically write, execute, and debug quantitative finance code. Handles the full task lifecycle including model calls and repairs without requiring code-review prompts.
Write, run, and debug a quant task automatically, without code-review prompts.
timeout_seconds bounds the whole task, including model calls and repairs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool automatically writes, runs, and debugs, and that the timeout bounds the entire process including model calls and repairs. This adds meaningful context about iteration and resource limits, though it does not mention side effects like artifact creation or persistence.
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 with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by the critical timeout constraint. Every sentence adds value and the description is appropriately front-loaded.
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?
Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and the timeout semantics. However, it does not mention what the tool returns, whether it creates artifacts, or any prerequisites for the task. For an automated coding task runner, this is a moderate gap but not critical.
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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It clarifies that timeout_seconds bounds the whole task, but it does not elaborate on the prompt parameter beyond the schema's field name. The prompt is central to the tool's operation, and its absence of any description leaves the agent without guidance on content or format.
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 clear verb-resource pair ('write, run, and debug a quant task') and is distinct from sibling tools like analyze_option_portfolio and read_artifact. It specifies the automated nature and excludes code-review prompts, so an agent can identify what this tool does.
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 usage for quant coding tasks and explicitly says 'without code-review prompts', but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.