Skip to main content
Glama

prepare_vec

Specifies a VEC model for cointegration among two or more I(1) series, records forecast versus long-run purpose, and applies checks before rank testing.

Instructions

N1c/C0 — The cointegration question, and the VEC's specification with its checks (docs/STUDY-vec.md §2.3-2.4, §3.1-3.2). Offered after canonical_analysis when TWO OR MORE series have d = 1, whatever its count: the question is the analyst's (in the autonomous lane, yours, with the reason written down). Feedback is not a precondition: it is tested inside the VEC (weak exogeneity).

purpose is REQUIRED and recorded at N1c: "forecast" or "long run". It decides the yardstick's role later (C8): a VETO when the purpose is to forecast, a CAVEAT beside a long-run claim (an equilibrium, who corrects).

The checks, each a refusal with its reason or a warning: d >= 2 (drvec models I(1) systems; back to art), D > 0 (drvec refuses a seasonal difference: deterministic seasonality in art, objective "multivariante"), a deterministic variable drvec refuses (its message), d = 0 series (the MIXED case: an option, mixed=True, never the default; they go in the Y1 block and r >= their number), a file that moved at the gate, and the sample (drvec's window against the gate's).

p: drvec's AR order on (nabla Y2, W) (0: proposed — the univariate AR order in nabla plus 1, or Tiao and Box's M(l) on the levels when canonical_analysis ran, up to its first run of non-significant lags). q: the MA order (0 by default). case: 1, 2, 3 or "pre" (default: each drift as its file's mean says). nodrift: series whose drift is held at 0 (case 3/pre). Never offered: drvec's refused options (-warma, -mawarma, -specs, -matest, -artest, -m 2, -rankadm, the instruments and the writers). Next: rank_test, the only way to a rank.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_vec"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pNo
qNo
caseNopre
nameYes
mixedNo
nodriftNo
purposeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so extensively: it discloses refusal cases, warnings, defaults, the role of `purpose` at N1c and later at C8, and the fact that feedback is tested inside the VEC rather than being a precondition.

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 dense, jargon-heavy, and uses internal codes and document references, making it hard to scan quickly. It is structured into paragraphs and most content is substantive, but it is not appropriately concise for an agent-facing definition.

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 complex multivariate statistical tool with no annotations, seven parameters, and no schema descriptions, the description is largely complete: it covers prerequisites, refusals, defaults, and the next step. The missing explanation of the required `name` parameter and reliance on internal documentation leave a gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `p`, `q`, `case`, `nodrift`, `purpose`, and the `mixed` option with allowed values and defaults, but it does not explain the required `name` parameter.

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 identifies the tool as preparing the VEC specification and its checks after canonical_analysis when two or more series are integrated of order one. It distinguishes the tool from canonical_analysis as a prerequisite and rank_test as the next step, though the opening internal labels ('N1c/C0') and dense jargon reduce immediate clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit conditions for use: offered after canonical_analysis when TWO OR MORE series have d = 1. It also names refusal conditions such as d >= 2, D > 0, and drvec-refused deterministic variables, and states that rank_test is the only path to a rank.

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