polygon-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
The asset-class prefixes (stocks_, crypto_, forex_, options_) help differentiate tools, but within each class there are overlapping functions like get_trades vs get_trades_v3 and multiple snapshot variants (stocks_get_snapshot vs stocks_get_snapshot_all). Descriptions clarify some differences, but agents could easily confuse similar endpoints.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent asset_class_verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., stocks_get_ema, crypto_get_aggregate_bars). Minor deviations like options_build_symbol and forex_real_time_conversion don't break the pattern, and the v3 suffix is consistently used.
Tool Count1/5
With 71 tools, this is far beyond a typical MCP server's scope. While the financial domain is broad, the repetitive per-asset-class duplication (e.g., get_rsi for four asset classes) makes the tool set feel bloated. It could be consolidated with a single parameterized endpoint.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers core market data (quotes, trades, aggregates, indicators) and reference data for stocks, options, forex, and crypto. However, there are notable gaps: no level 2 order book for stocks/options/forex, no forex/options snapshots, and limited news coverage (only stocks). The presence of v3 variants suggests an inconsistent API surface.
Average 2.8/5 across 71 of 71 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on December 25, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get MACD'. It does not mention data source, return format, calculation behavior, or any side effects. This is essentially a tautology that adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any structure to convey parameter context or usage nuance, making it insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, many similar siblings), the one-line description is completely inadequate. It does not explain how MACD is calculated, what the response looks like, or how this tool relates to other crypto indicator tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description does not explain any of them. The parameter names like 'short_window_size' and 'signal_window_size' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage or clarify types, defaults, or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves MACD data for a crypto pair, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stocks_get_macd and forex_get_macd by specifying 'crypto'. However, it is minimal and does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'crypto pair' or the context of the MACD calculation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool's function. It fails to mention time series handling, configurable windows, default behavior, or response format, offering no behavioral insight beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, but its extreme brevity lacks necessary substance. For a tool with 10 parameters, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the one-line description is completely inadequate. It does not explain when to use the tool, what data it returns, or how it fits with sibling indicators, leaving critical gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain the meaning of short_window_size, long_window_size, signal_window_size, or other parameters, leaving the agent to guess their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get MACD for an option contract' uses a clear verb and resource, and explicitly narrows the scope to option contracts, which distinguishes it from MACD tools for stocks, forex, or crypto. However, it does not provide differentiation from sibling options indicators like SMA, EMA, or RSI.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternative indicator tools, nor any prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description adds no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose data range, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or whether the quotes are historical time-series or current. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, so it's short, but it's under-specified rather than concisely informative. It omits essential details about query parameters and response meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is drastically inadequate. It fails to convey the tool's full behavior, return format, or filtering capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters beyond the concept of an option contract. The optional parameters (sort, limit, order, timestamp) are completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves quotes for an option contract, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that fetch indicators (SMA, EMA, RSI) and other data (trades, snapshots). However, it doesn't clarify whether these are historical or real-time quotes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus related tools like options_get_snapshot or options_get_trades. The parameter schema suggests it returns a list of quotes with sorting/limiting, but the description offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention pagination, default sorting, how data is returned, or any edge cases. The single sentence 'Get historical stock splits.' is purely descriptive and offers zero transparency into the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this under-specification crosses into being unhelpfully terse. While the single sentence is front-loaded, it fails to earn its place by providing necessary detail. Compare to the 'Process' example in the rubric, which received a 2 for under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, parameter usage, or any behavioral nuances. An agent would have no idea how to invoke this tool effectively based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema only provides names and types. The description does not compensate by explaining parameters like 'reverse_split' or 'execution_date'. It adds no semantic value beyond what the parameter names already imply, which is insufficient for a tool with multiple optional parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get historical stock splits.' clearly states the action (get) and the specific resource (historical stock splits), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reference_get_stock_dividends and reference_get_stock_financials. However, it omits any elaboration on scope or context, so it does not fully leverage the opportunity to clarify its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implicit context is the resource name, which is not enough to guide an agent's decision-making among many similar reference tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it provides none. It does not mention what the returned data looks like, how parameters like window_size or timespan affect results, or any limitations, making the tool behaviorally opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately structured. It lacks any organization or additional sections to clarify the tool's behavior, especially given the complexity of 8 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, parameter interactions, or potential side effects, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description only mentions 'stock symbol' without elaborating on any of the other 7 parameters such as limit, order, timespan, or window_size. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation as retrieving a Simple Moving Average for a stock symbol, which is specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like stocks_get_ema or forex_get_sma, so the purpose is clear but not fully contextualized.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as EMA or RSI. The description lacks any indication of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states 'Get info', implying a read operation, but does not explain return format, error conditions, rate limits, or how as_of_date affects behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though it still presents the core action clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description lacks details on return values, parameter formats, or how this relates to similar reference tools. This is inadequate for a tool in a large family of options and reference endpoints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes 'ticker' and 'as_of_date', but the description does not mention either parameter or their roles. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and resource 'option contract', indicating a read operation. However, it does not specify what type of information is returned or how the contract is identified, making it somewhat vague. It does distinguish from sibling reference_get_option_contracts by singular/plural, but not clearly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where other tools like reference_get_option_contracts or options_get_snapshot would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'List option contracts with various filters.' It doesn't mention pagination, sort defaults, whether expired contracts are included, or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a listing endpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence), but it's too vague to be considered well-structured. It lacks even a high-level explanation of the filter categories, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is severely inadequate—it doesn't explain what the tool returns, how filters interact, or any behavior. It is far below the minimum viable for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't mention any specific parameters. 'Various filters' is an empty phrase that adds no meaning to the schema's parameter names. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('List') and resource ('option contracts'), and the plural form distinguishes it from the sibling 'reference_get_option_contract'. However, 'various filters' is vague and doesn't specify what kind of filters or the exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for listing contracts, that it's not for quotes/trades, or how it differs from the singular 'reference_get_option_contract'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, the data range, or any limitations. The description adds no value beyond the tool's name.
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?
The description is one concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the key information. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, but for the little it aims to convey, it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a moderately complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to use it correctly. It provides no context about parameters, return values, or edge cases. Even basic operations like 'limit' and 'order' defaults are unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. With 8 parameters, the agent gets no explanation of what 'window_size', 'series_type', 'timespan', etc. mean. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 'Get Exponential Moving Average for a forex pair' clearly states the specific action (get), the resource (EMA), and the scope (forex pair). It distinguishes from siblings like forex_get_sma and stocks_get_ema by naming both the indicator type and asset class.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any context where another indicator tool might be more appropriate. The description is purely a statement of function without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get Simple Moving Average' with no details on data range, calculation parameters, return format, or side effects. This is essentially a bare statement of function.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler words and is front-loaded with the verb. However, it is so brief that it lacks any context, making it efficient but minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this one-sentence description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain input semantics, output format, or use cases, leaving the agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes eight parameters with zero description coverage. The tool description adds no explanation of parameters like 'adjusted,' 'timespan,' 'series_type,' or 'window_size,' leaving the agent without semantic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('Simple Moving Average for an option contract'), which clearly states what the tool does. It differentiates from similar indicator tools by mentioning 'option contract,' though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus others, such as options_get_ema or stocks_get_sma. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, how the optional date parameter affects results, or what happens with invalid symbols. The description is too brief to support safe usage.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity sacrifices informative content, so it is not a model of effective structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description must compensate by explaining what 'detailed info' entails and how the date parameter behaves. It fails to do so, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), yet the description does not explain that 'symbol' is the ticker identifier or that 'date' is optional and likely filters historical data. This leaves the agent without adequate semantic understanding of the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource as 'detailed info about a ticker and the company behind it,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like news or lists. However, 'detailed info' is somewhat vague, lacking specifics on what data fields are returned, so it is not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as reference_get_ticker_news or reference_get_stock_financials. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a simple action. It does not mention that the symbol parameter is optional, the effect of sort/order/limit, pagination behavior, or the output format, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. A single sentence without parameter context or usage notes does not earn its place for a tool with multiple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information on input handling, return values, filtering options, and default behaviors, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (sort, limit, order, symbol). It completely fails to add meaning beyond the basic schema, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves news articles for a ticker symbol, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('news articles'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on quotes, indicators, or reference data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives or how it relates to other news or reference tools. The description lacks any explicit or implicit usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Get RSI' without explaining output format, calculation period, data source, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that fails to inform the agent about the tool's actual behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but drastically under-specified. It lacks any structure or additional detail, making it more of an under-specification than a well-crafted concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and a wide set of sibling indicators, the description is wholly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, parameter impacts, or selection criteria, leaving a large gap in context for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema exposes 8 parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description mentions none of them. There is zero compensation for the 0% schema description coverage, leaving the agent without any understanding of how parameters like limit, timespan, or window_size affect the result.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the Relative Strength Index for a stock symbol, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling RSI tools for forex, crypto, and options by limiting to stocks, and from other stock indicators by naming RSI explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stocks_get_ema or stocks_get_sma. The description only implies use when a stock RSI is needed, but does not mention any exclusions or comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only states a read operation. It does not mention pagination, sorting, filtering, return format, or any rate limiting, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise, though this conciseness compromises completeness. It earns its place by clearly naming the action, but the lack of detail is a trade-off.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool is severely under-specified. The description does not explain how trades are returned, how limit or sort affect results, or what the timestamp parameter does. It is not complete enough for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. It mentions 'option contract' but does not map to the required 'option_symbol' parameter or describe the optional sort, limit, order, or timestamp fields. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare type names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves trades for an option contract, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trades'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like options_get_last_trade, the plural 'trades' and the inclusion of 'option contract' provide sufficient clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no context about how this differs from options_get_last_trade or options_get_quotes, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, or that multiple identifier parameters are optional, leaving the agent without insight into how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant wording, so it is technically concise. However, for a tool with 11 parameters and no additional context, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, lacking necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is severely incomplete. It only communicates the core idea and omits essential context like input requirements, output expectations, and filtering options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not reference any of the 11 parameters. It offers no guidance on what parameters mean, which are required, or how they interact, leaving the agent to guess from names and defaults alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('historical financial data for a stock from SEC filings'), which distinguishes it from sibling reference tools like dividends and splits. However, 'financial data' is somewhat broad and could encompass many types of reports or metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as needing a ticker or CIK, and no exclusions. The description only states what it does, not how to decide if it's the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention data return format, pagination, rate limits, parameter effects, or any side effects. The one-sentence description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is appropriately sized for the minimal information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex technical tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description is grossly insufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly, what parameters to set, or what response to expect. The high parameter count and lack of external documentation make this severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. The only parameter referenced is 'symbol', which is already obvious from the schema and tool name. The description fails to add meaning for limit, window_size, series_type, timespan, or other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves an Exponential Moving Average for a stock symbol, using a specific verb and identifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'stock symbol', which differentiates it from forex, crypto, and options variants, though it lacks additional scope differentiation like date range or filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like SMA or RSI, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely states the action, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, data range, calculation specifics, default window size, or limitations. No concrete contexts are added beyond the basic definition.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise in the sense of being a single sentence, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions. It lacks necessary details, making it under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The one-liner does not earn its place for such a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the meaning of the parameters, the expected output, usage scenarios, or any relevant context. The description is inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool beyond recognizing its basic function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 8 parameters and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for missing parameter meaning. It only vaguely maps 'crypto pair' to the 'symbol' parameter and explains none of the other parameters (limit, order, adjusted, timespan, timestamp, series_type, window_size). The description adds almost no value over the raw schema.
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 states 'Get Exponential Moving Average for a crypto pair' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Exponential Moving Average' for 'crypto pair'). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like crypto_get_sma, crypto_get_macd, stocks_get_ema, and forex_get_ema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any use cases, exclusions, or conditions under which EMA is preferred over SMA or RSI, nor does it reference any sibling tools. There is no implied usage context beyond the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only list operation but provides no details on pagination, sorting limits, filtering effects, or the format of the returned conditions. The agent cannot anticipate side effects or response characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains no structure to aid scanning, such as a summary, examples, or parameter notes. The brevity comes at the cost of essential information, making it not appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what 'conditions' refers to in Polygon's domain, when they are relevant, or how the output relates to other market data tools. An agent cannot confidently infer the tool's full purpose or invocation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the five parameters. While parameter names like 'limit' and 'sort' are generic, the meaning of 'data_type', 'asset_class', and 'condition_id' is left entirely to inference. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('conditions that Polygon uses'), clearly identifying the tool's primary function. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from other reference tools by naming a unique resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where a different reference tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not explain what is returned (e.g., timestamped MACD values), how the calculation works (e.g., default windows 12/26/9), or any potential side effects or limitations. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no auxiliary docs). It sacrifices valuable information for brevity. This is not effective conciseness but rather under-specification, similar to the 'Process' example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It is a complex financial indicator with configurable windows, timespans, and series types. The one-line description is completely inadequate to inform an agent about inputs, outputs, or behavior. There is no context about the return format, defaults, or calculation logic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the 10 parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'stock symbol,' implicitly mapping to the required 'symbol' parameter, but it does not explain any of the other parameters (limit, order, adjusted, timespan, timestamp, series_type, long_window_size, short_window_size, signal_window_size). With no guidance, the agent cannot correctly set these parameters for typical use cases.
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 'Get MACD for a stock symbol' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (MACD) and the scope (stock symbol). This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other asset classes (e.g., forex_get_macd, crypto_get_macd) and other indicators (e.g., stocks_get_rsi, stocks_get_ema). It is both specific and non-tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for stock MACD only, nor does it suggest using forex_get_macd or crypto_get_macd for other asset classes. No exclusions or contexts are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get trades for a stock on a specific date,' omitting any mention of default limit behavior, pagination, ordering, or whether it returns all trades. This is a minimal, tautological statement that adds no behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention how the limit parameter affects results, differentiate from v3, or hint at the return structure. The tool's behavior is under-specified for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), while the symbol and limit parameters are left unexplained. The limit parameter has a default of 5000 but its meaning (maximum number of trades) is not conveyed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves trades for a stock on a given date, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool stocks_get_trades_v3, leaving ambiguity about version differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stocks_get_trades_v3, stocks_get_last_trade, or quotes. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'get snapshots' but doesn't explain what a snapshot includes, whether it's real-time or historical, or any rate limits or permissions. The lack of any behavioral traits beyond the action itself leaves significant ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal to be complete. It doesn't mention what the snapshot contains, how it differs from crypto_get_snapshot, or anything about the response structure. An agent would likely need to infer or explore further, making it inadequate for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'symbols'. It doesn't clarify the expected format (e.g., 'BTCUSD' vs 'BTC-USD'), case sensitivity, or any constraints. With no param info in the description, it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets snapshots for specified crypto symbols. The verb 'Get' and resource 'snapshots' are specific, and the tool name 'crypto_get_snapshot_all' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'stocks_get_snapshot_all' and 'crypto_get_snapshot'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its singular counterpart, so it loses a point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crypto_get_snapshot or stocks_get_snapshot_all. It only states what it does without any context or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention defaults (limit=5000), how 'time range' is interpreted (e.g., via timestamp), pagination, response format, or any limitations. This leaves the agent guessing about expected behavior.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. There is no verbosity or redundancy. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification, though that is penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the behavior of the trade list, how time range works, or what a caller should expect. It is only minimally complete enough to alert the agent to the tool's existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (sort, limit, order, symbol, timestamp). The phrase 'time range' vaguely hints at timestamp but does not clarify the role of other parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('trades for a crypto pair') with a scope ('in a time range'). It is not a tautology and clearly communicates the primary function. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling crypto_get_historic_trades, which likely serves a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like crypto_get_historic_trades or crypto_get_last_trade, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without contextualizing its usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose what the return format looks like, what happens if no trade exists, whether the ticker must be in a specific option OCC format, or any rate limits. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that is front-loaded and free of wasted words. It earns a high score for conciseness, though the brevity contributes to the lack of substantive information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description should at least specify the expected ticker format, the nature of the returned trade data, and any preconditions. It offers none of this, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'ticker' with no description, and the description provides zero additional meaning. It does not explain what a valid option contract ticker looks like (e.g., OCC symbol format) or give an example. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it completely fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('Get') and the resource ('the most recent trade for an option contract'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like options_get_trades (plural) or options_get_quotes. However, it does not explicitly mention that the input is a single option's ticker symbol or differentiate it from stocks_get_last_trade/crypto_get_last_trade, so slightly more clarity could be added.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as options_get_snapshot (which may include last trade data) or options_get_trades (for historical trades). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or examples of when this is the preferred choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and behavioral traits. It only says 'Get snapshot', implying a read, but does not describe data returned, authentication, rate limits, or whether the snapshot is real-time. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence is tight and readable, but it under-specifies rather than being concise. It earns a moderate score for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not state what a snapshot contains (e.g., bid/ask, volume, Greeks). For a tool with many closely named siblings, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only parameter names with no descriptions; coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the format of option_symbol (e.g., OCC symbol) or the relationship between underlying_symbol and option_symbol, so it fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshot for an option contract'), clearly identifying the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish this from other snapshot/option tools beyond the name, and 'snapshot' is not defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like options_get_quotes, options_get_last_trade, or reference_get_option_contract. The description gives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only conveys the basic read operation. It does not mention differences between v3 and v1, rate limits, pagination, response format, or any other behavioral traits beyond the action.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, but it conveys only minimal information. Still, for what it contains, it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not cover parameter usage, return values, or the difference from the non-v3 sibling, leaving a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (sort, limit, order, symbol, timestamp). The phrase 'time range' vaguely references timestamp but is insufficient to guide an agent on how to specify the range or use the other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation—getting trades for a stock within a time range—but it does not differentiate this v3 version from the sibling stocks_get_trades. The 'v3 API' label is a version marker, not a functional distinction, so it does not fully distinguish the tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stocks_get_trades or when the time range is applicable. The description simply states what the tool does without explaining usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic action. It does not mention how RSI is calculated, whether it returns a series or single value, default window size, or any limitations, leaving the agent without insight into the tool's behavior.
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?
At one sentence, the description is highly concise with no filler. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary context, though for conciseness this is still favorably simple and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), a single sentence is grossly insufficient. There is no mention of response format, usage examples, or interpretation of RSI, making the description incomplete for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description names only the implicit 'crypto pair' (symbol). It does not explain limit, order, adjusted, timespan, timestamp, series_type, or window_size, so the agent cannot infer their meanings or defaults.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the Relative Strength Index for a crypto pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stocks_get_rsi and forex_get_rsi by specifying 'crypto pair', and from other crypto indicators such as crypto_get_ema or crypto_get_sma.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer RSI over MACD or SMA, or when to choose crypto over other asset classes. The description is a bare statement of functionality without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely restates the tool's purpose without mentioning read-only nature, default behaviors, data format, rate limits, or any side effects. This leaves the agent without critical context.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but given the tool's complexity, it could have beneficially expanded while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely sparse. It does not cover parameter semantics, return values, or usage scenarios, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in complex or nuanced cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 10 parameters with zero descriptions, and the tool description explains none of them. Parameters such as 'long_window_size', 'series_type', and 'timestamp' remain undefined, giving the agent no semantic guidance beyond their names.
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 clearly states the tool gets MACD for a forex pair, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like forex_get_rsi, stocks_get_macd, and other asset-class MACD tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the tool's name and description: use when MACD is needed for a forex pair. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative indicators or asset classes, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get NBBO quotes' without mentioning whether it returns current or historical data, how limit affects results, or any rate limits or pagination. This is a minimal disclosure of behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, making it inappropriately sized for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 5 undocumented parameters, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of parameters, or how this tool fits into the broader set of quote tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at the symbol parameter via 'forex pair.' It provides no explanation for sort, limit, order, or timestamp, leaving all parameters undefined and failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 states a specific action (Get) and resource (NBBO quotes for a forex pair), distinguishing it from related tools like forex_get_last_quote or forex_get_historic_ticks by the NBBO qualifier. It clearly identifies the asset class and the type of data returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forex_get_last_quote, forex_get_historic_ticks, or stocks_get_quotes. The description provides no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get aggregate bars' but gives no details about pagination, rate limits, adjusted prices, or how parameters like timespan or multiplier affect results. The only extra detail is the date format, which is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters and no annotations.
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?
The description is two short sentences, both of which add value: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a concrete format requirement. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could have included more detail without becoming bloated. It earns a 4 for being appropriately concise but not maximally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is starkly under-specified. It does not explain what the response contains, how parameters interact, or any special behaviors. The description is only slightly above a placeholder and fails to provide the context an agent needs to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. It does add the value that dates must be in YYYY-MM-DD format, which is helpful for from_date and to_date, but it does not clarify symbol, timespan, multiplier, limit, adjusted, or sort. This is a minimal contribution relative to the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly states the resource ('aggregate bars for an option contract'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like stocks_get_aggregate_bars, forex_get_aggregate_bars, and crypto_get_aggregate_bars by explicitly scoping to options. The sentence is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the decision entirely to the agent without contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the date format and OHLCV, omitting details about the 'adjusted' parameter, error behavior, or whether it returns a single record or a list. Minimal extra context beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is not verbose. Every word adds some value, but it is so concise that it misses essential details. It is appropriately structured but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It lacks guidance on symbol format, the 'adjusted' flag, return structure, and how it relates to similar tools. An agent would have difficulty invoking it correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and implies the symbol refers to an option contract, but it does not explain the structure of an option symbol or the meaning of the 'adjusted' parameter, leaving two of three parameters underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'OHLCV for an option contract on a date,' which distinguishes it from stock/crypto counterparts. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other option data tools like options_get_aggregate_bars.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., options_get_aggregate_bars or options_get_previous_close) or any prerequisites such as symbol format or data availability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description offers no behavioral details beyond the basic 'Get' operation. It doesn't disclose the data source, read-only nature, calculation specifics, or response format, leaving the agent with minimal understanding of what invoking this tool entails.
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 a single efficient sentence with no wordiness, making it easy to parse and front-loaded. It earns its place without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is grossly insufficient for an agent to determine correct usage, parameter values, and expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that the 'symbol' parameter refers to an option contract, but leaves limit, order, adjusted, timespan, timestamp, series_type, and window_size unexplained.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the Relative Strength Index for an option contract, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Relative Strength Index for an option contract'), distinguishing it from sibling RSI tools for stocks, forex, and crypto.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternative RSI or options indicator tools. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusion criteria, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only provides the date format. It omits important behavioral traits such as default timespan/multiplier effects, whether data is adjusted, pagination, or the shape of the returned candles.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the date format note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description too sparse for reliable invocation. It lacks explanations of key parameters, defaults, and response characteristics, leaving a knowledgeable agent to infer too much.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies the format for from_date and to_date. Other parameters (multiplier, timespan, adjusted, sort, limit) are left unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity about how to combine them to get the desired bars.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('get aggregate bars/candles') and the resource ('for a stock'), distinguishing it from similar tools for other asset classes (forex, crypto, options). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related stocks_get_grouped_daily_bars, which also deals with bars.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the intended use case (e.g., individual stock history vs. grouped market-wide bars) or any conditions/preconditions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's basic function without adding context about return format, timezone, adjustment behavior, or any potential edge cases. There is no mention of read-only status or what the output looks like.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose. This level of brevity is appropriate for a simple tool, though it sacrifices completeness for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters (one ambiguous), the description is insufficient for safe and correct usage. It does not clarify the 'adjusted' parameter, output contents, or how this tool compares to similar ones. The lack of context could lead to incorrect assumptions or misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. The 'symbol' and 'adjusted' fields are left entirely to the schema, but the 'adjusted' parameter is ambiguous (e.g., does it adjust for splits/dividends?). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('previous day's OHLCV for a stock'). It specifies the asset class and data type, distinguishing it from other stock tools (e.g., current price, last quote). However, it does not explicitly contrast with stocks_get_daily_open_close, which is a sibling tool that might seem similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of exclusions, alternative tools, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get' with no mention of how the RSI is calculated, what data range is used, any limitations, or whether it supports multiple timeframes. It does not contradict annotations (there are none), but it offers no meaningful behavioral context beyond being 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is easy to read and front-loads the key purpose. It contains no fluff or irrelevant details. However, it is perhaps too terse, missing information that could be added without hurting conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate for a full understanding. It does not explain what the RSI output looks like, what the parameters control, or any prerequisites. The agent would need to rely on assumptions or external documentation to use this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameter or their meaning. The agent is left to guess what 'limit', 'order', 'adjusted', 'timespan', 'timestamp', 'series_type', and 'window_size' do. This is a significant gap since no parameter explanations exist anywhere.
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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get Relative Strength Index for a forex pair.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'Relative Strength Index' are specific, and 'for a forex pair' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stocks_get_rsi or crypto_get_rsi. It also differs from other forex indicators (SMA, EMA) by naming the indicator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that it is suitable for momentum analysis or that one could use a different period. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the output type (EMA) but does not disclose behavior such as time series support, default values (window_size=50, timespan='day'), or response format. It adds minimal context beyond the name.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence with no superfluous words. However, given the complexity of the tool, it might be too terse, but conciseness is not penalized for lack of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify an option contract or what response to expect, making it inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the 8 parameters. It does not explain the role of symbol, window_size, timespan, series_type, or timestamp, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct a correct call.
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 states the action (Get) and the specific resource (Exponential Moving Average) for an option contract. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like options_get_sma (Simple Moving Average) and cross-asset EMA tools (stocks_get_ema, forex_get_ema).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as options_get_sma or options_get_rsi. There is no mention of suitable use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and offers no additional context such as return format, filtering behavior, or limitations. It adds minimal value beyond the one-line summary.
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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the core purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a terse summary. It fails to explain how to filter, what the response contains, or any usage nuances. This is severely incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. The five parameters (ticker, ex_dividend_date, sort, limit, order) are left entirely to the schema, which has no descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get historical cash dividends for stocks.' It specifies a precise verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('historical cash dividends'), and the asset class ('stocks'). This distinguishes it from siblings like reference_get_stock_splits and reference_get_stock_financials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose dividends over splits or financials, or any context for use. This is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('Get') without describing the return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or the effect of the 'limit' parameter. The phrase 'historic trades' implies immutable past data, but that is not a substitute for explicit behavioral context.
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 a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and the date format is a practical addition. It earns perfect marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified. It tells the agent what the tool does at a high level but does not explain what the response will contain, how pagination works, or how the 'limit' parameter behaves. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke and interpret the tool without additional assumptions.
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?
The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'crypto pair' corresponds to from_symbol and to_symbol, and specifies the date format for the 'date' parameter. However, it does not address the 'limit' parameter, nor does it clarify symbol ordering or formatting (e.g., base/quote convention). This partial compensation yields a middle score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get historic trades for a crypto pair on a date (YYYY-MM-DD).' It identifies the resource (historic trades), the required context (crypto pair and date), and includes the date format. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_get_trades, the word 'historic' and the date parameter imply a distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools for current trades (e.g., crypto_get_trades) or historical data for other asset classes. The intended use case is implied by the description but not explicitly stated, and no exclusions or alternative scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the operation (get SMA) and symbol format, but fails to explain how the SMA is computed, what response format to expect, or how parameters like window_size or timespan affect behavior. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a critical usage detail (symbol format). No wasted words, and the format hint is actionable and necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, no schema property descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain return values, parameter meanings, defaults' impact, or any edge cases, leaving the agent without the information needed to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a specific format for the symbol parameter, which is useful, but it does not explain any of the other 7 parameters (limit, order, adjusted, timespan, timestamp, series_type, window_size). Most parameters remain semantically opaque.
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 clearly states the tool computes a Simple Moving Average for a crypto pair, with a specific symbol format (X:BTCUSD). This distinguishes it from other SMA tools for forex, stocks, and options, and from crypto EMA/RSI tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a format hint for the symbol parameter but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling alternatives. There is no mention of asset-class suitability, typical use cases, or exclusions, so an agent receives little help in selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the format for 'expiry' and 'call_or_put', but omits how the final symbol is assembled (e.g., ordering, formatting of strike price) or any constraints. The tool's output schema exists but the behavioral aspects of symbol construction are not explained.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and two key format constraints. There is no wasteful filler, and the information provided is directly useful. However, it's slightly under-specified due to missing param details, preventing a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema, the description still omits critical behavior like the concatenation order or how the strike price is embedded. It does not mention any edge cases or conversion rules, making it incomplete for an agent to predict the exact output.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify 'expiry' (YYMMDD) and 'call_or_put' (c/call or p/put), but provides no details for 'underlying_symbol' or 'strike_price'. These are self-explanatory by name, yet strike_price may have formatting nuances not covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Build an option symbol.' This distinguishes it from the sibling 'options_parse_symbol' implicitly, though it doesn't explicitly contrast the two. The scope is clear enough for an agent to know what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling 'options_parse_symbol' exists, the description could have noted that this is for constructing symbols while the sibling is for decomposing them. Without this, an agent may not know the best choice in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read-only listing action but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the call requires authentication, whether it returns only active exchanges, whether pagination is involved, or any rate limit considerations. The verb 'List' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for the agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and limitations. The one-line description does not explain the role of the optional parameters, nor does it describe the return value format or any edge cases, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two optional parameters (locale and asset_class) with zero schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to filter exchanges by locale or asset class, which is a significant gap.
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 clearly states the action (List) and the resource (all exchanges that Polygon knows about), which distinguishes it from sibling reference tools like reference_get_tickers or reference_get_conditions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus other reference tools, nor are any alternatives or exclusions mentioned. The description only gives a one-line purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic function and does not reveal whether the mapping is filtered by locale/asset_class, if it is read-only, what the response structure is, or any other behavioral traits.
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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the presence of two undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse to be complete. It fails to explain parameter filtering or the nature of the return value, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its two optional parameters (locale and asset_class), and the description does not mention them at all. There is no explanation of how these parameters affect the mapping, leaving the agent with zero semantic guidance.
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 'Get mapping of ticker types to their descriptive names' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like reference_get_tickers and reference_get_ticker_details, which deal with actual tickers rather than type mappings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and vague function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states a simple read operation. It does not clarify whether the price is real-time or delayed, what market/session it covers, or any potential side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with many close siblings.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose in the most concise way possible, earning it full marks for conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given the large number of sibling tools for similar price data, the description lacks the contextual differentiation and edge-case information that would make it fully complete for an agent deciding which tool to call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for the 'symbol' parameter, and the description only says 'for a stock,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the tool name. It does not explain the expected symbol format (e.g., 'AAPL' vs. exchange suffixes) or provide any additional parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get current market price for a stock.' clearly states the verb (get), resource (stock), and outcome (current market price). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like stocks_get_last_quote or stocks_get_last_trade, which also provide price data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative price-related tools among the many siblings. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the AI agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states a basic function and fails to disclose what the return value contains, whether it supports null responses, or any data source nuances. It does not contradict any annotations (none present), but it provides minimal behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than proper conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the 'trade' data includes (price, volume, timestamp), nor does it specify the return format. For a financial data tool, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'symbol' is only defined by its title. The description provides no format, example, or clarification that it expects a stock ticker. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('the most recent trade for a stock'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stocks_get_last_quote' and 'stocks_get_trades' by specifying 'trade' and 'most recent'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'stocks_get_trades' for historical data or 'stocks_get_last_quote' for bid/ask. The description lacks any contextual recommendations or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does without disclosing behavior like whether adjustments are applied, what the response contains beyond open/close, or any potential errors. The description provides no additional context beyond the function's core purpose.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and key context without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
For a relatively straightforward tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the 'adjusted' parameter or what the return structure looks like, though 'get open/close' strongly implies the response contains open and close prices. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 (minimum viable) is appropriate.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and implies that from_symbol and to_symbol represent the crypto pair. However, it fails to explain the 'adjusted' parameter, which remains ambiguous despite being a boolean with a default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it gets open/close for a crypto pair on a specific date, with the date format specified. It differentiates itself from similar stock/options/forex tools by mentioning 'crypto pair', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools for stocks, options, or forex. The only implicit signal is the word 'crypto' in the name and description, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It reveals the retrieval limit (top 20) but fails to mention that the operation is read-only, that 'direction' defaults to 'gainers', or what data points are included in the response. This is a sparse disclosure for an unannotated tool.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity comes at the cost of omitted details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to select between gainers and losers, what the default is, or what fields the returned items contain. For a tool with one parameter, this is a clear gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single 'direction' parameter with no description and no enum. The description mentions 'gainers or losers' but does not explicitly link this to the 'direction' parameter or specify the exact valid values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to adequately explain the parameter's meaning and default behavior.
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 clearly states the tool's function: to retrieve the top 20 crypto gainers or losers. It names the resource (crypto market) and scope (top 20), and distinguishes it from sibling tools for stocks and forex by including 'crypto'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as stocks_get_gainers_and_losers or other crypto indicators. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's function without mentioning return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation beyond the implied 'get'.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that is directly front-loaded. No unnecessary words or filler, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description should explain what the last trade data includes (e.g., price, size, timestamp). It doesn't. Given the simplicity, it's minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to set expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for from_symbol or to_symbol, and the description only adds the vague notion of a 'crypto pair'. It doesn't explicitly clarify that from_symbol is the base currency and to_symbol is the quote currency, nor does it provide format or example values.
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 'Get the last trade for a crypto pair' is specific and clear, with a verb ('get'), resource ('last trade'), and scope ('crypto pair'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like crypto_get_trades or crypto_get_historic_trades by explicitly noting 'last trade'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no use-case examples or exclusions, such as when to prefer crypto_get_trades for historical trades or crypto_get_snapshot for more comprehensive data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action but does not mention return format, data availability, adjustment behavior, rate limits, or any caveats. For a simple read operation this might be acceptable, but it adds no behavioral context beyond the function name.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the essential action. It is appropriately concise for a tool with only two parameters and no detailed return structure, containing no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not specify what 'previous day' means in terms of trading days, how 'adjusted' affects the OHLC values, or what response to expect. The agent has insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool with confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints that 'symbol' refers to a 'crypto pair' but gives no format or examples (e.g., BTCUSD). The 'adjusted' parameter is entirely unexplained—its purpose, default behavior, and impact on the result are omitted.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get previous day's OHLC for a crypto pair.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('previous day's OHLC'), and scopes it to 'crypto pair,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocks_get_previous_close and forex_get_previous_close.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crypto_get_daily_open_close or crypto_get_aggregate_bars. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicitly named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get aggregate bars' and the symbol format, but does not describe the return format, data granularity, timezone handling, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is a minimal disclosure but lacks useful context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the core operation, but it is not appropriately sized for a tool with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions. It is under-specified, which makes it concise but at the expense of necessary information, so it earns a middle score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 8 parameters, lack of output schema, and zero annotation coverage, the description is far too thin to be complete. It does not explain what aggregate bars represent, how to construct date ranges, or what the response looks like. The tool may work for a simple case, but the description is largely inadequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. Yet it only clarifies the symbol format for the 'symbol' parameter, leaving from_date, to_date, timespan, multiplier, sort, limit, and adjusted entirely unexplained. This is almost no parameter guidance beyond the raw schema.
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 clearly states the operation 'Get aggregate bars' and specifically scopes it to 'a forex pair', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocks_get_aggregate_bars and crypto_get_aggregate_bars. The symbol format hint further clarifies the resource type. This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement.
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 clear context that this tool is for forex pairs, implying it should be used when forex aggregate bars are needed rather than stocks or crypto. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It only reveals that the result is 'top 20' but does not explain how 'direction' determines gainers vs. losers, nor any other behavior such as time period, sorting, or currency pair handling.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It is highly concise and efficient, even if under-specified in content, which is addressed in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and no annotations or output schema, but the description still fails to explain the meaning of the 'direction' parameter or any behavioral details. It is minimally informative and would not fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema lists a 'direction' parameter with a default but no enum. The description hints at 'gainers or losers' but fails to explicitly state that the parameter accepts these values. With schema coverage at 0%, the description does not adequately compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top 20 forex gainers or losers'), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools for stocks and crypto by explicitly mentioning 'forex'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like stocks_get_gainers_and_losers or crypto_get_gainers_and_losers. It only states the core function without any contextual selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level, without explaining the meaning of 'last quote' (e.g., bid/ask), data freshness, or any side effects (which are likely none). No additional behavioral context is provided.
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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is extremely sparse. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what a 'last quote' contains (e.g., price, bid/ask, timestamp) but does not. It also lacks any contextual hints about data source, delay, or real-time behavior, which would be expected given sibling tools differentiate these aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters with zero descriptions (coverage 0%). The description implies that the two symbols form a forex pair, but it does not specify which is the base or quote currency, nor provide any examples (e.g., 'from_symbol=EUR, to_symbol=USD'). It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the last quote for a forex pair.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('last quote'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'forex pair' and 'last quote' rather than historical or aggregated data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like forex_get_quotes, forex_get_historic_ticks, or real-time conversion. The description does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets OHLC data; it does not describe the return format, whether adjusted=true is default, or what happens if the previous day is not a trading day. The behavior is minimally defined.
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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It clearly front-loads the action and object, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema or annotations to supplement the description. The tool's return structure, edge cases, and the role of the 'adjusted' parameter are unaddressed. For a simple get, the description is under-specified and leaves important context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. While 'ticker' is implicitly an option contract symbol, the 'adjusted' boolean is entirely undocumented, leaving users without understanding of how it affects the data.
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 clearly states a specific verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'previous day's OHLC for an option contract'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like options_get_daily_open_close (which gets a specific date's open/close) and options_get_aggregate_bars (which gets bars over a range).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios such as needing historical ranges instead of just the previous close.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the core parsing behavior and extracted fields, but does not disclose input format expectations, error handling, or output structure. For a parsing tool, this leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and what it extracts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description lists outputs but omits the response format and input symbol format. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'option_symbol' beyond its name. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., OCC, ticker pattern) or provide examples, leaving the agent to guess.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Parse an option symbol') and lists the exact outputs extracted (underlying, expiry, type, strike). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'options_build_symbol', which presumably does the inverse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have an option symbol and need its components. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'options_build_symbol', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that results may be paginated via the limit parameter, that 'all' may be constrained by a default limit of 1000, or what the response format looks like. It simply states the query intent without addressing these operational details.
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 a single, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler words and is well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to give the agent a complete picture. It omits filter capabilities, pagination behavior, and the fact that the default limit may not return all tickers in one call, making it under-specified for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the nine parameters (sort, limit, order, active, market, search, symbol, exchange, symbol_type). The agent must infer their semantics from the names alone, with no additional guidance.
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 uses a specific verb 'Query' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all ticker symbols supported by Polygon (stocks, crypto, forex).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reference_get_ticker_details or reference_get_ticker_types, which focus on specific attributes rather than the full list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving the full set of tickers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as reference_get_ticker_details or reference_get_ticker_types, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the most recent NBBO quote' and does not disclose data sources, market hours, response structure, or any limitations, which is insufficient for a tool that could interact with live market data.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without any redundant words or filler. It is highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. It omits information about return values, use cases, and limitations, and does not help differentiate between the many sibling quote-like tools. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds only that the symbol refers to a stock. It does not explain symbol formatting, requirements, or potential edge cases. While the single parameter 'symbol' is self-descriptive, the description does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states 'Get the most recent NBBO quote for a stock,' identifying a specific verb, resource, and scope. The mention of NBBO distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocks_get_last_trade or stocks_get_current_price, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stocks_get_quotes_v3 or stocks_get_current_price. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest any other tools, leaving the selection criteria entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the tool's core purpose. It does not mention output format, pagination behavior, how timestamp/range is interpreted, or any related side effects or limitations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the essential resource and action without filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return value shape, parameter details, and behavioral nuances, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'stock' (symbol) and 'time range' (timestamp) but provides no explanation of sort, order, limit, or how timestamp defines the range, leaving most parameter semantics unexplained.
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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('NBBO quotes'), and the scope ('for a stock in a given time range'), distinguishing it from related tools like stocks_get_quotes and stocks_get_last_quote by naming the v3 API and NBBO quote type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stocks_get_quotes or stocks_get_last_quote. The mention of 'v3 API' hints at versioning but does not provide explicit selection criteria, exclusions, or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' (implying a read operation) but provides no details on return format, pagination, timezone handling, or other behavioral traits. The minimal info does not contradict annotations (none exist) but is inadequate.
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?
The description is very concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then the symbol format. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, so it's borderline between conciseness and under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what 'aggregate bars' include, how date ranges work, default behavior, or how this relates to grouped daily bars. Only the basic purpose and symbol format are provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the symbol format (X:BTCUSD), leaving 7 other parameters (sort, limit, adjusted, timespan, multiplier, from_date, to_date) without additional context. The description adds some value for the symbol param but fails to cover the rest.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get aggregate bars for a crypto pair.' It also provides the symbol format (X:BTCUSD), which adds specificity and helps differentiate from stocks/forex aggregate bars. The verb 'Get' and resource 'aggregate bars' are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for crypto pairs but does not explicitly mention when to use this over sibling tools like stocks_get_aggregate_bars or forex_get_aggregate_bars. The symbol format hint is a minor usage guideline, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get daily OHLC', implying a read operation but does not disclose return format, pagination, timezone handling, adjustment behavior, or data availability. The adjusted parameter is not explained, and no output schema exists to fill the gap.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the key date format is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose but lacks important behavioral details like what the response contains (e.g., array of bars), how 'adjusted' affects results, or whether the data includes all crypto assets. The absence of any mention of the adjusted parameter is a notable gap.
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?
The description adds format details for the date parameter (YYYY-MM-DD), which is useful since schema has no descriptions. However, the adjusted parameter is completely omitted, leaving the agent to guess its meaning or rely on external knowledge. Partial coverage, so a mid-score is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Get daily OHLC'), the resource ('entire crypto market'), and the key parameter (date with format). This distinguishes it from per-ticker tools or other market data tools like crypto_get_aggregate_bars or crypto_get_snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for single-ticker data one should use crypto_get_aggregate_bars, or that other grouped_daily_bars tools exist for stocks/forex. The implicit context is not enough for an agent to choose correctly among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the response contains (e.g., bids/asks, depth levels), or any limitations such as symbol format or rate limits. The description only names the action without revealing any behavioral traits.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no filler or redundant words, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a level 2 order book includes and how the tool fits into a workflow. It does neither, leaving the agent without information about the return structure (bids/asks) or when to use this over sibling tools. The description is minimally adequate but incomplete for a tool of this nature.
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?
The schema provides zero description for the 'symbol' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning that the symbol is a 'crypto pair', which gives some domain context. However, it does not specify expected formatting (e.g., 'BTCUSD' vs 'BTC-USD') or clarify that the symbol directly maps to the pair, leaving partial ambiguity.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('level 2 order book') for a defined domain ('crypto pair'). This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on indicators, prices, trades, or snapshots, and there is no competing order-book tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios call for it, or how it compares to alternatives like crypto_get_snapshot or crypto_get_trades. It simply restates the function, offering no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' ticks, but does not describe the return format, ordering, pagination, or any limits on data volume. It omits details about whether the response includes trade price, volume, timestamp, or other fields.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and free of fluff. It states the essential function without repetition or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. While it conveys the core operation, it lacks critical context such as the structure of returned ticks, the meaning of 'trade ticks' in terms of data fields, or any limits on response size. An agent would have to guess about output format and behavior, making the description incomplete for safe invocation.
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?
The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and indicating the 'forex pair' concept, which clarifies from_symbol and to_symbol. However, it does not explain the optional 'limit' parameter or provide deeper semantics for the symbols beyond being a pair. With 0% schema coverage, partial compensation is made but not full.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historic trade ticks for a forex pair on a date'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like forex_get_quotes, forex_get_aggregate_bars, and forex_get_rsi by explicitly targeting raw tick data for a specific date.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios like needing historical tick data instead of aggregates, quotes, or indicators. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the result (previous day's OHLC) but does not disclose the meaning of the 'adjusted' parameter, timezone handling, or any other behavioral nuances. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it omits essential parameter details that would require additional sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It names the return type (OHLC) but lacks information about the adjusted parameter, symbol conventions, or how this differs from other forex endpoints. The tool is simple, but the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fails entirely to explain the 'symbol' format or the 'adjusted' boolean's effect. The description mentions 'forex pair' but not how to specify it in the symbol parameter, and 'adjusted' is completely ignored.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'previous day's OHLC', and the scope 'forex pair'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like forex_get_aggregate_bars and stocks_get_previous_close by specifying the asset class and data type.
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 implies a clear use case: retrieving the previous close OHLC for a forex pair. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when it applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the symbol format. It does not describe return format, pagination, time range handling, or any edge cases. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not stated explicitly, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.
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 efficiently concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and the critical symbol format. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides almost no context about how the SMA is calculated, what the parameters control, or what the response looks like, making it inadequate for correct invocation without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does provide the symbol format ('C:EURUSD'), which is useful, but it fails to explain the remaining 7 parameters (e.g., window_size, timespan, series_type) that exist in the schema, leaving the agent without crucial guidance on how to configure the SMA calculation.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get Simple Moving Average for a forex pair.' It specifies the resource (SMA), the market type (forex), and the symbol format ('C:EURUSD'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like forex_get_rsi or stocks_get_sma.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining SMA values in forex markets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and reference to forex pairs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure but only says 'Get snapshots.' It does not mention return format, handling of invalid symbols, what data is included in a snapshot, or any side effects or limitations, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single sentence of eight words, immediately front-loading the core function with no filler or redundancy. It is extremely concise while conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool having only one parameter, the lack of an output schema, annotations, and any description of return values or edge cases makes the description insufficient for a snapshot tool that likely returns complex data. Important context such as response structure and potential errors is completely absent.
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?
The description explains the key semantics of the 'symbols' parameter: 'all' or 'specified', which suggests null/omitted means all and a list means specified. However, it does not specify the symbol format (e.g., ticker strings) or the behavior for empty arrays, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get snapshots') and the resource ('stock symbols'), with explicit scope ('all or specified') that differentiates it from the singular stocks_get_snapshot. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or clarify what a snapshot contains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'all or specified' implies this tool is for batch snapshots, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives like stocks_get_snapshot. The usage context is inferred rather than directly addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get snapshot' without explaining what the snapshot includes, data freshness, or any limitations. This is minimal and leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output and side effects.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what a snapshot is and what the return value looks like. It does neither, nor does it clarify the symbol format. The description is too sparse for a standalone tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'symbol' with 0% description coverage. The description adds a hint that the symbol is a crypto pair, but does not specify the expected format (e.g., 'BTCUSD' vs 'BTC/USD'). This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (snapshot) with a specific scope ('single crypto pair'), distinguishing it from siblings like crypto_get_snapshot_all and other asset-class snapshot tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a single crypto pair, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like crypto_get_snapshot_all. The context signals list sibling tools, but the description itself provides no direct guidance on when to prefer this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals the response contains a combination of minute/day/previous-day aggregates and last trade/quote, which is useful, but it does not mention whether data is real-time/delayed, what happens if the symbol is invalid, or any access/rate-limit requirements.
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?
One sentence with a front-loaded verb and a compact parenthetical list of content. No wasted words; 'agg' is terse but acceptable given the domain.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the key response components (minute, day, prev day aggregate, last trade/quote), giving the agent a reasonable sense of what to expect. However, it does not provide enough detail about response structure, data timing, or edge cases, so it is not fully complete despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single `symbol` field with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only implies the symbol refers to a stock ticker via 'for a stock', but does not specify format, case, or examples. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter name.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current snapshot for a stock'), and the parenthetical enumerates included data: minute, day, prev day agg, last trade/quote. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like stocks_get_last_trade or stocks_get_snapshot_all because it is the singular-stock aggregate snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives such as stocks_get_current_price or stocks_get_aggregate_bars, nor state when this snapshot is preferred. The use case is implied but not explicitly compared with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get current trading status' and does not explain what the response looks like, whether it covers all exchanges or a subset, timezone implications, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or output.
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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose in minimal space, matching the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the return value represents, but it does not. The phrase 'trading status' is vague; it does not specify whether the response is a list of markets, a single status, or details like open/closed/after-hours. For a zero-parameter tool with no schema, this lack of detail makes it incomplete for an agent to predict the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-specific information needed beyond the schema, which is empty. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no additional parameter context but does not need to.
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 clearly states the action ('get') and the resource ('current trading status of exchanges and markets'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reference_get_exchanges and reference_get_market_holidays. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only restates the basic function without contextualizing it relative to the many sibling market data tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description only states the output type. It does not disclose behavior for invalid or non-trading dates, the effect of the 'adjusted' parameter, or any rate limits. However, it does specify the date format and the inclusion of after-hours prices, providing some behavioral context.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loads the key action and resource, and contains no filler. It is appropriately minimal.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimal but covers the main data type and date format. However, it omits guidance on the adjusted parameter and edge-case behavior, making the tool somewhat underspecified for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds context for the date parameter by specifying the YYYY-MM-DD format, and identifies the symbol as a stock, but does not explain the 'adjusted' boolean parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves OHLCV and after-hours prices for a stock on a given date, with the date format specified. It distinguishes from related sibling tools like previous_close and aggregate_bars by focusing on daily open/close with after-hours data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stocks_get_previous_close or stocks_get_aggregate_bars. The description lacks conditional usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose the use of 'latest market rates,' indicating real-time or current data. However, it does not mention return format, handling of precision, or any limitations. For a non-destructive conversion tool, this is moderate transparency but lacks useful details.
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 a single, efficient sentence with an illustrative example. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., just converted amount, object with rate), nor does it explain the precision parameter. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The example 'USD to EUR' clarifies from_symbol and to_symbol, but it does not explain the 'precision' parameter or the expected symbol format. Amount is self-explanatory by name, but overall the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('currency using latest market rates'). The example 'USD to EUR' reinforces the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly technical indicators and market data fetchers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through its clear verb and example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Since there are no direct sibling conversion tools, the implied usage is acceptable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the top-20 list limit but does not explain the return format, sorting criteria, time period, or whether any authorization is required. This minimal disclosure leaves critical behavioral aspects implicit.
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 extremely concise, using two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and immediately detail the parameter. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description adequately covers the basic action and parameter, but it omits details about the response structure, the time period considered for gainers/losers, and the selection criteria (e.g., percentage change vs. dollar change). Given there is no output schema, these details would materially improve completeness.
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?
The schema's direction parameter has no description or enum, and the description explicitly defines the allowed values ('gainers' or 'losers'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, making the parameter semantics clear for an agent.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves top 20 gainers or losers, with the direction parameter determining which list. The verb 'Get' plus resource 'top gainers/losers' is specific and unambiguous, and the tool name disambiguates from forex/crypto siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for stocks specifically, nor does it contrast with the forex and crypto versions of the same tool, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data type (OHLCV) and the scope (entire market), but omits critical behavioral details such as the meaning of the 'adjusted' parameter, the format/structure of the returned data, and potential edge cases (e.g., non-trading days, data availability). The description is too terse to fully inform the agent about the tool's behavior.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning (Get, daily OHLCV, entire stock market, date format). It is highly concise and well-structured for the information it conveys.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should ideally clarify what the agent receives (e.g., a list of bars for all tickers) and explain the adjusted parameter. While the core purpose is clear, the missing explanation of 'adjusted' and the return structure leaves noticeable gaps for a tool of this complexity. The description is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It provides the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) but does not explain the 'adjusted' boolean parameter at all, despite it having a default value that affects the output. This is a significant gap for a 2-parameter tool; the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and explicitly states the resource ('daily OHLCV for entire stock market on a date'), with the date format specified. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like stocks_get_aggregate_bars (single ticker) by emphasizing 'entire stock market' and matches the tool name 'grouped_daily_bars'.
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 clearly conveys the intended usage: to fetch market-wide daily OHLCV data for a given date. It provides context (the date parameter) and implicitly excludes single-ticker operations, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the scope is unambiguous, the agent can infer when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Get quotes', adding no context about limit behavior, return format, pagination, or other behavioral characteristics. It is purely a read verb without disclosure of how the tool operates in practice.
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?
A single, compact sentence with no wasted words; it front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 3 parameters, the description is too sparse. It doesn't describe the shape of returned quotes, the effect of the limit, or how this differs from stocks_get_quotes_v3, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.
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?
The description supplies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which the schema does not, but it fails to explain the 'limit' parameter or clarify that the tool may return multiple quotes. With 0% schema description coverage, more compensation is expected.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Get quotes'), resource ('a stock'), and scope ('on a specific date'), distinguishing it from siblings like last-quote or forex tools.
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 phrase 'on a specific date (YYYY-MM-DD)' provides clear context for when to use this tool (historical daily quotes) and implicitly differentiates from real-time or last-quote tools, though it doesn't name explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose the potentially large response size, pagination, or the effect of the 'adjusted' parameter. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the essential operation. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or unrelated information.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return format and the 'adjusted' parameter. It states OHLC is returned, but the scope of 'entire forex market' and potential pagination are unclear, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent to fully anticipate the response.
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 0%, and the description compensates only for the 'date' parameter by specifying the format YYYY-MM-DD. The 'adjusted' boolean parameter is not explained, leaving its meaning ambiguous. The description adds value for one parameter but ignores the other.
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 clearly states it retrieves daily OHLC data for the entire forex market on a specific date, with the date format explicitly provided. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for stocks and crypto, and from forex_get_aggregate_bars which targets individual pairs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'entire forex market' implies it is used for obtaining data across all forex pairs rather than a single symbol, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns upcoming holidays with open/close times, which is useful context, but it does not disclose the time range, which markets are covered, or the return format. For a zero-parameter tool this is acceptable but minimal.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words or redundancy. It is perfectly sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely sufficient to convey the core function. It could clarify the scope (e.g., which markets or a list of holidays), but given the simplicity, the description provides adequate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter information is needed.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'upcoming market holidays and their open/close times.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reference_get_market_status, reference_get_conditions, and reference_get_exchanges, which cover different reference data.
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 makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving market holiday information, differentiating it from other reference tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, though the context is clear given the tool's name and the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![polygon-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atomcp-ai/polygon-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atomcp-ai/polygon-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![polygon-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atomcp-ai/polygon-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atomcp-ai/polygon-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/atomcp-ai/polygon-mcp'

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