Skip to main content
Glama

journal_thesis

Record investment theses with falsifiers and evidence at the moment of the call, enabling honest post-outcome scoring and preventing hindsight bias.

Instructions

Record a call so it can be scored later, and return the stored thesis.

Write this at the moment the call is made. Evidence and falsifiers cannot
be reconstructed honestly once the outcome is known, which is the whole
reason the journal exists.

Record `direction="watch"` when the conclusion was to take no position —
a watch call that would have worked is as informative as a trade that did.

Args:
    ticker: Stock symbol.
    thesis: The call, in plain language. What this is and what to do.
    falsifiers: Observations that would prove the thesis wrong — price
        levels, a filing, a metric crossing a threshold. Required.
    direction: "long", "short" or "watch".
    horizon: "swing", "positional" or "long_term".
    conviction: Free text, e.g. "low", "medium", "high".
    entry: Entry price. Required for a long or short.
    stop: Stop price. Required for a long or short.
    target: Target price.
    reward_risk: Reward:risk, as reported by `size_position`.
    shares: Share count, as sized by `size_position`.
    dollar_risk: Capital at risk, as sized by `size_position`.
    risk_verdict: The `verdict` returned by `size_position`.
    evidence: Supporting figures, each ideally {"claim", "source",
        "period"}, so the thesis can be audited against the filings.
    gaps: Data that was unavailable, stale or unresolved at the time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gapsNo
stopNo
entryNo
sharesNo
targetNo
thesisYes
tickerYes
horizonNoswing
evidenceNo
directionNowatch
convictionNomedium
falsifiersYes
dollar_riskNo
reward_riskNo
risk_verdictNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the persistence behavior ('stored thesis'), the requirement that falsifiers be provided, and the ethical rationale for immediate recording. It could further clarify whether this overwrites existing entries or is append-only, but for a journaling tool the described side effect is sufficiently clear.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is divided into an opening purpose/ethics paragraph and a labeled Args list. There is no fluff; every line adds semantic value. For a tool with 15 parameters, the length is justified and the format makes it scannable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has 15 parameters with conditional requirements and an output schema. The description covers all parameters, provides usage timing, explains return value, and integrates references to sibling tools like size_position. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and understand the result without additional context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Every parameter is explained: falsifiers are defined with examples, evidence suggests a structure, entry/stop are marked conditionally required, and direction/horizon/conviction list their allowed values. This surpasses the schema's bare structure.

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?

The description opens with 'Record a call so it can be scored later, and return the stored thesis.' This clearly states the verb (record), resource (call/thesis), and purpose (scoring later). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_theses and get_thesis by focusing on the write operation.

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?

The description provides strong timing guidance: 'Write this at the moment the call is made' and explains why that matters. It also clarifies when to use direction='watch'. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or name alternative tools for retrieval, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Saivikaskillamsetty/tradingdesk'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server