Massive.com MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools cover distinct financial data domains (e.g., aggregates, quotes, news, futures), but there is significant overlap in functionality. For example, 'get_aggs' and 'list_aggs' both handle aggregate bars, and multiple 'get_snapshot_*' tools target similar snapshot data for different asset types, which could cause confusion in tool selection.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern (e.g., 'get_aggs', 'list_tickers'), with verbs like 'get' and 'list' used appropriately for retrieval. However, there are minor deviations, such as 'get_real_time_currency_conversion' using a longer name and some tools like 'list_benzinga_analyst_insights' having compound nouns, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 53 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, indicating poor scoping. This many tools can overwhelm agents and lead to inefficiency, as many functions could be consolidated or better organized (e.g., grouping similar snapshot or Benzinga tools). A more focused set would improve usability.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for financial data retrieval, including aggregates, quotes, trades, news, futures, and market statuses. It supports CRUD-like operations for data access across multiple asset classes (stocks, crypto, forex, futures) and includes auxiliary data like holidays and inflation, leaving no obvious gaps for the domain.
Average 2.9/5 across 53 of 53 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
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
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation provides readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict this (listing implies reading), but adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotation already covers. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what 'earnings' specifically includes, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't earn its place—it provides almost no useful information beyond the tool name. For a tool with 57 parameters, this level of minimalism is inadequate and unhelpful for an AI agent.
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 high complexity (57 parameters, 0% schema coverage), the presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the description's inadequacy. The description fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, and offers no behavioral context beyond the basic readOnlyHint annotation. For such a parameter-rich tool, this description is completely insufficient.
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?
With 57 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for explaining parameters but provides zero information. It doesn't mention any filtering capabilities (date, ticker, importance, etc.), sorting, limits, or the purpose of the 'params' field. The schema titles are minimal (e.g., 'Date', 'Ticker'), so the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Benzinga earnings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides the basic verb ('List') and resource ('Benzinga earnings'), but lacks specificity about what 'earnings' entails (e.g., earnings reports, data, announcements) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_stock_financials' or 'list_dividends' that might cover related financial data.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for financial data (e.g., 'list_stock_financials', 'list_dividends', 'list_ticker_news'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's appropriate. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools are mentioned.
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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming this is a safe read operation. The description does not contradict this, as 'list' implies reading. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, pagination details, or authentication needs. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal value, warranting a baseline score.
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 'List Benzinga ratings.' is extremely concise but under-specified, not appropriately sized for a tool with 57 parameters. It lacks front-loaded critical information and wastes no words, but this brevity results in insufficient detail, making it ineffective rather than efficiently structured.
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 high complexity with 57 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema description provided in context, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain parameters, return values, or usage scenarios, failing to provide the necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation in a data-rich environment.
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 57 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning all parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about any parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent without understanding of what parameters like 'date_gt' or 'importance' mean, making it inadequate for tool invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Benzinga ratings' is a tautology that restates the tool name, providing no additional detail about what the tool does beyond the verb 'list' and resource 'Benzinga ratings'. It lacks specificity, such as indicating it retrieves financial analyst ratings with filtering capabilities, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_benzinga_consensus_ratings, making it vague and minimally informative.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools like list_benzinga_consensus_ratings or other data retrieval tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any usage instructions, which is misleading in its omission of necessary decision-making information.
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?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' indicates this is a safe read operation, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not add value but also does not mislead.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, it is overly brief to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary detail for such a complex tool, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
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 high complexity (45 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, provide usage context, or explain the tool's role relative to siblings, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
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 45 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about any parameters. It fails to explain the purpose of filtering fields (e.g., date, ticker) or operational parameters (e.g., limit, sort), leaving semantics entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Benzinga analyst insights' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It lacks specificity about what 'analyst insights' entail (e.g., ratings, reports, or other data) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_benzinga_ratings' or 'list_benzinga_consensus_ratings', leaving the purpose vague.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools for filtering or comparison, offering no 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?
The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict this, but it also adds no behavioral context beyond the basic 'list' action. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (though 'limit' parameter exists), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. With annotations covering the safety aspect, the description adds minimal value.
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 at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring rules, conciseness evaluates whether every sentence earns its place. Here, the single phrase has no wasted words, so it technically meets the criteria for maximum 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?
Given the complexity (27 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema details provided in context), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the numerous filtering parameters, or provide any context about the Benzinga analyst data model. The existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 27 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about parameters, not even mentioning that filtering or sorting options exist. For a tool with 27 undocumented parameters, this is a critical gap that the description fails to address.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Benzinga analysts' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates the resource (Benzinga analysts) and verb (list), it provides no specificity about what 'list' entails or distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'list_benzinga_firms' or 'list_benzinga_analyst_insights'. The purpose is stated but lacks meaningful differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to Benzinga data (e.g., list_benzinga_firms, list_benzinga_analyst_insights), but the description offers no context about when this specific analyst-listing tool is appropriate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict (it implies a read operation with 'List'). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this—no details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what 'guidance' entails. With annotations covering safety, it meets a minimal baseline but lacks added value.
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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. For conciseness alone, it scores highly as it avoids redundancy and 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?
Given the high complexity (45 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and lack of output schema explanation, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not compensate for missing parameter details, provide usage context, or clarify the tool's role among siblings, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
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 information about the 45 parameters. It fails to explain what parameters like 'date', 'ticker', or 'importance' do, their formats, or how filtering works (e.g., using 'gt', 'lt' suffixes). This leaves parameters undocumented and unusable without schema inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Benzinga guidance' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'Benzinga guidance' but lacks detail on what 'guidance' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_benzinga_analyst_insights' or 'list_benzinga_earnings', leaving purpose vague beyond the obvious.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., other Benzinga-related tools like 'list_benzinga_news'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.
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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as pagination, rate limits, or data format details. With annotations covering safety, it meets a baseline but lacks additional useful information.
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 with a single sentence, 'List Benzinga firms.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but it scores high for brevity alone.
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 complexity (9 parameters with 0% schema coverage) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation or provide enough context for effective tool use, despite structured fields covering some aspects.
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 information about the 9 parameters (e.g., 'benzinga_id', 'limit', 'sort'). It fails to explain what these parameters do or how they affect the listing, leaving them completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Benzinga firms' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('Benzinga firms') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'List' and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_benzinga_analysts' or 'list_benzinga_news', leaving the purpose vague.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools for comparison, offering no 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?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations - it doesn't mention what treasury yields are, what time periods are available, what format the data returns in, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds little value but doesn't contradict the structured 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 extremely concise at just three words. While this may be too brief for effective tool selection, it's not wordy or redundant. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
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 complexity of 10 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no sibling differentiation, and a financial data retrieval context, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't explain what treasury yields are, how to filter them, or when to use this versus other financial data tools. For a tool with this many parameters and sibling tools, more context is needed.
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 provides zero information about any of the 10 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only provides parameter names and types without explaining what they mean. The description doesn't compensate at all - it doesn't mention date filtering, limit, sort, order, or params parameters, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of how to use the tool effectively.
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 states the tool's purpose as 'Retrieve treasury yield data', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many sibling tools (like list_aggs, list_dividends, etc.) that also retrieve financial data, leaving the agent to guess when this specific tool is appropriate versus alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 58 sibling tools on the server, many of which retrieve different types of financial data, the agent receives no help in distinguishing when treasury yield data is needed versus other data types. There are no explicit or implied usage contexts provided.
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?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose—it doesn't mention rate limits, data sources, accuracy, or any constraints like supported currencies. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value, scoring a baseline 3.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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 tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, an output schema (which helps), and annotations covering safety, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.
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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what 'from_', 'to', 'amount', 'precision', or 'params' mean, leaving their semantics unclear.
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 'Get real-time currency conversion' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('real-time currency conversion'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_last_forex_quote' or 'get_last_quote' that might also provide currency-related data, leaving the distinction unclear.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that could handle currency or forex data (e.g., 'get_last_forex_quote'), there's no indication of when this specific conversion tool is appropriate, making usage ambiguous.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the data source ('Federal Reserve'), but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or output format details. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline score is given for slight added value.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though it lacks depth.
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 complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage or behavioral traits beyond the source, but the output schema may cover return values, preventing a lower score. However, it fails to address the high parameter count adequately.
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%, with 9 parameters undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters (e.g., date filters, limit, sort), leaving semantics unclear. This is inadequate given the high parameter count and lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get inflation data from the Federal Reserve' states a general purpose but is vague about what 'inflation data' entails (e.g., specific metrics, time series, or reports). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'list_treasury_yields' or other data-fetching tools, leaving ambiguity about the exact resource being accessed.
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. With many sibling tools for financial data (e.g., 'list_treasury_yields', 'list_quotes'), the description lacks context on specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what 'market statuses' includes (e.g., open/closed times, holidays). With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but the description misses opportunities to clarify behavior like filtering or output format.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly brief and under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and complex sibling relationships, suggesting conciseness at the expense of necessary detail rather than optimal brevity.
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 with 0% schema coverage, annotations only covering read-only status, and an output schema present (which might help with returns), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral nuances, or differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation in this rich 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%, so parameters like 'product_code_any_of', 'product_code', 'limit', 'sort', and 'params' are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no parameter information, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what these parameters do, their formats, or how they affect results, leaving critical usage details unclear.
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 'Get market statuses for futures products' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('market statuses for futures products'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_market_status' or 'get_futures_snapshot'. It specifies 'futures products' which helps narrow the domain, but lacks detail about what 'market statuses' entails.
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. With many sibling tools like 'get_market_status' (likely for general markets) and 'get_futures_snapshot' (likely for real-time data), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
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?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description implies data retrieval but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data 'snapshots' include. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides some value but lacks rich behavioral 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get snapshots for futures contracts.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it well-structured for quick understanding.
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 complexity of 15 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, and the presence of an output schema (which may help with return values), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, usage scenarios, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation in this 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?
With 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no descriptive information about parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters, such as 'ticker', 'product_code', or 'limit', leaving their semantics unclear. This gap is significant given the high parameter count and lack of schema support.
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 'Get snapshots for futures contracts' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshots for futures contracts'), providing a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks specificity about what 'snapshots' entail (e.g., price data, market depth) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all' or 'get_snapshot_ticker', making it vague in comparison.
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 specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools such as 'get_snapshot_all' or 'get_snapshot_ticker' that might serve similar purposes. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'gainers or losers', which hints at directional data retrieval, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'gainers or losers' entails (e.g., percentage thresholds, time frames). With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks depth, warranting a baseline score.
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, efficient sentence: 'Get gainers or losers for a market.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but as is, it earns high marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.
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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), annotations (readOnlyHint=true), and low complexity, the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address parameter meanings or usage context, making it adequate for simple queries but insufficient for fully informed tool selection without external references.
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 parameters like 'market_type', 'direction', 'include_otc', and 'params' are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, their expected values, or how they affect the output. For example, it does not clarify what 'direction' represents (e.g., 'gainers' vs. 'losers') or what 'market_type' entails, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
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 'Get gainers or losers for a market' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'gainers or losers for a market', which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all' or 'get_snapshot_ticker', making it vague in comparison to alternatives. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name 'get_snapshot_direction'.
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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_snapshot_all', 'get_snapshot_ticker'), there is no indication of how this tool fits into the broader set. Usage is implied only by the description's content, but no explicit guidelines are given.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict this, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—it doesn't specify what data the snapshot includes, whether it's real-time or historical, or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks detailed 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is appropriate for such a brief statement.
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 complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no title, and many siblings) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify parameter usage, differentiate from siblings, or provide context needed for effective tool invocation, relying too heavily on the output schema without addressing input ambiguities.
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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'ticker' but doesn't explain the three parameters (market_type, ticker, params) or their semantics. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving parameters largely undocumented and unclear in meaning.
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 states the action ('Get snapshot') and target resource ('for a specific ticker'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all', 'get_snapshot_crypto_book', or 'get_snapshot_option', leaving ambiguity about what type of snapshot this retrieves versus others. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity needed for sibling differentiation.
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. With many sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all' (for all snapshots) and 'get_snapshot_option' (for options), the description offers no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about 'iterating' through bars, suggesting a sequential or paginated retrieval, but doesn't specify behavioral details like rate limits, pagination mechanics, or what 'aggregate bars' entail. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, but it's arguably too brief given the complexity (9 parameters) and lack of sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place, but more detail might be warranted.
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 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage, an output schema exists (which helps), and annotations cover safety, the description is incomplete. It hints at key parameters but misses most, and doesn't address usage context. For a data retrieval tool with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.
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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'ticker' and 'date range', hinting at 'ticker', 'from_', and 'to' parameters, but omits the other 6 parameters (e.g., 'multiplier', 'timespan', 'adjusted'). It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving most parameters unexplained.
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 states the tool 'iterates through aggregate bars for a ticker over a given date range', which specifies the verb ('iterate'), resource ('aggregate bars'), and scope ('ticker', 'date range'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_aggs' or 'list_futures_aggregates', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_aggs', 'list_futures_aggregates'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description does not contradict this, as 'List' aligns with read-only behavior. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—no details on rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but is not rich in behavioral disclosure.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is overly concise to the point of under-specification, slightly reducing its effectiveness.
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 tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description does not need to cover return values. However, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage guidelines, the description is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation. It meets a minimal baseline but has clear gaps in parameter and contextual guidance.
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 parameters like 'asset_class', 'data_type', 'id', 'sip', and 'params' are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain these parameters or their semantics, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. This leaves the agent unclear on how to use the parameters effectively.
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 'List conditions used by Massive.com' states a verb ('List') and resource ('conditions'), but it is vague about what 'conditions' are (e.g., financial conditions, data conditions) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_aggs' or 'list_tickers', which also list resources. It avoids tautology by not restating the name directly, but lacks specificity.
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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and sibling tools include many list operations without clear differentiation. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'upcoming or historical' scope, but doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral 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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place.
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 complexity (11 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema details provided in context), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints beyond basic scope. For a tool with many undocumented parameters, more completeness is needed.
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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'upcoming or historical' but doesn't explain how to use the 11 parameters (e.g., ticker, listing_date filters, limit, sort) to achieve this. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
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 'Retrieve upcoming or historical IPOs' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (IPOs), and specifies the scope (upcoming or historical). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools that also retrieve financial data (like list_dividends, list_splits, etc.), so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 any prerequisites, constraints, or suggest other tools for related tasks (e.g., filtering by ticker vs. date). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data format details. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal value, but does not contradict the 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is overly brief given the tool's complexity (10 parameters), potentially under-specifying rather than being optimally concise.
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 annotations indicating read-only behavior and an output schema present, the description does not need to cover return values. However, it lacks details on parameter usage and behavioral context for a tool with 10 parameters and 0% schema coverage, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the structured support.
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 parameters like 'ticker', 'date', 'limit', and 'sort' are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining parameter meanings, usage, or constraints (e.g., date formats, ticker requirements, sort options), leaving significant gaps in understanding.
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 states the tool 'Retrieve short volume data for stocks,' which provides a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('short volume data for stocks'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_short_interest' or 'list_aggs,' leaving ambiguity about its specific scope or data type compared to similar tools in the list.
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. With sibling tools like 'list_short_interest' and 'list_aggs' available, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
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?
The annotations include 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict this, as 'Get' aligns with read-only behavior. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'fundamental financial data' entails (e.g., historical vs. real-time, data sources). With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value, scoring a baseline 3.
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: 'Get fundamental financial data for companies.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words. While it lacks detail, it's appropriately sized for a minimal description, earning a high score 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 complexity (21 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema details provided in context), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's scope, return values, or how to use the many filtering parameters effectively. With annotations only covering read-only status, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially with numerous undocumented parameters.
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 21 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning parameter titles (e.g., 'ticker', 'filing_date') are the only documentation. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what parameters like 'cik', 'sic', or 'timeframe' represent, how they interact, or which are required for effective use. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't, resulting in a poor score.
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 states the tool 'Get fundamental financial data for companies', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('fundamental financial data for companies'). However, it's vague about what 'fundamental financial data' specifically includes (e.g., balance sheets, income statements) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_ticker_details' or 'list_tickers', which might also provide financial or company data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and differentiation.
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 any prerequisites, context for usage (e.g., for investment analysis, reporting), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_ticker_details' or 'list_tickers'. Without such information, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. It doesn't contradict annotations, but with annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value, meeting the lower bar.
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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
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 complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage or behavioral traits, leaving gaps despite the output schema handling return values. For a tool with many parameters, more context is needed.
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 but fails to do so. It mentions 'ticker symbol' but doesn't explain the 10 parameters (e.g., timestamp filters, limit, sort). Without param details in the description, the agent lacks semantic understanding beyond the schema's basic titles.
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 'Get trades for a ticker symbol' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('trades for a ticker symbol'), which meets the basic requirement. However, it's vague about scope (e.g., historical vs. real-time, time range defaults) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_last_trade' or 'list_futures_trades', missing specific differentiation.
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 siblings like 'get_last_trade' for the most recent trade or 'list_futures_trades' for futures data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'for multiple assets of a specific type', which hints at batch retrieval, but doesn't detail aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds limited value beyond them.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded but lacks structure for a tool with 6 parameters, potentially oversimplifying. It earns its place but could benefit from more detail given the complexity.
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 tool has 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, annotations for read-only, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter explanations and usage guidelines. The output schema reduces the need for return value details, but the description doesn't fully address the tool's complexity, leaving gaps in 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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'type' and implies 'multiple assets' (possibly related to ticker_any_of), but doesn't explain any of the 6 parameters' meanings, formats, or interactions. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
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 states the tool 'Get universal snapshots for multiple assets of a specific type', which provides a basic verb+resource (get snapshots) and scope (multiple assets, specific type). However, it's vague about what 'universal snapshots' entail compared to other snapshot-related tools like get_snapshot_all or get_snapshot_ticker, lacking specific differentiation from siblings. It's not tautological but remains general.
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. With many sibling tools like get_snapshot_all and get_snapshot_ticker, there's no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the description's scope, but no explicit context is provided.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'grouped daily bars' and 'entire market,' but does not disclose details like rate limits, authentication needs, or data format. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral insights.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get grouped daily bars'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the tool's function.
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 tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description does not need to explain safety or return values. However, with 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter context. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in parameter semantics and usage guidelines.
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 parameters like 'date,' 'adjusted,' and 'include_otc' are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'specific date,' adding minimal semantic value for the 'date' parameter but ignoring the other five parameters. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameters unclear.
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 states the tool 'Get[s] grouped daily bars for entire market for a specific date,' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('grouped daily bars') with scope ('entire market,' 'specific date'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_aggs' or 'get_daily_open_close_agg,' leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus others for similar 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'entire market' and 'specific date,' but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'get_aggs' or 'get_previous_close_agg.' This lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to select the correct tool.
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?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It specifies 'most recent' which provides temporal context, but doesn't address rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what constitutes a 'forex quote' versus other quote types. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, the description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.
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 at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses straightforward language. While more detail would be helpful, what's present is efficiently structured.
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 tool's relative simplicity (read-only forex quote retrieval) and the presence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with 0% schema parameter documentation and multiple similar sibling tools, the description should provide more differentiation and parameter guidance to be truly complete for agent use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description carries full burden for explaining parameters but provides no information about 'from_', 'to', or 'params'. The description mentions 'forex quote' which implies currency pairs, but doesn't specify format (e.g., 'USD/EUR'), required syntax, or what the 'params' object might contain. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.
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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get the most recent forex quote', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_last_quote' or 'get_real_time_currency_conversion', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific forex tool versus other quote-related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that appear to handle quotes, currency conversions, and forex data, there's no indication of when this specific forex quote tool is appropriate versus tools like 'get_last_quote' or 'get_real_time_currency_conversion'.
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?
The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict (it implies a read operation with 'Get'). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, data freshness, or what 'snapshot' includes (e.g., real-time vs. historical data). With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but the description provides minimal additional value.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise.
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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations and usage context, but annotations provide some safety info. This results in a minimally viable but gap-filled description.
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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'market' but does not explain the four parameters (market_type, tickers, include_otc, params) or their semantics. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get a snapshot of all tickers in a market,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshot of all tickers'), but lacks detail on what a 'snapshot' entails or how it differs from siblings like 'get_snapshot_ticker' or 'list_universal_snapshots.' This makes it minimally adequate but not specific enough for full differentiation.
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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it compares to 'get_snapshot_ticker' (single ticker) or 'list_universal_snapshots' (broader scope). This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict (it implies a read operation with 'Get'). However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it specifies the target is an 'option contract' but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what data the snapshot includes. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise.
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 tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description does not need to cover return values or safety. However, with 3 parameters (2 required) and 0% schema coverage, the description lacks details on parameter usage and behavioral context, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for effective tool 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'option contract' and implies 'underlying_asset' but does not explain what these parameters mean (e.g., format, examples) or the purpose of 'params'. It adds some semantics but insufficiently compensates for the coverage gap.
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 states the tool 'Get snapshot for a specific option contract', which provides a basic verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshot for a specific option contract'). However, it lacks specificity about what a 'snapshot' entails (e.g., current market data, pricing details) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all' or 'get_snapshot_ticker', making it vague in context.
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 prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_snapshot_all' (for all snapshots) or 'get_futures_snapshot' (for futures), leaving the agent without context for selection.
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?
The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (a read operation). However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. With annotations covering safety, it meets baseline but lacks enrichment.
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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description doesn't need to cover return values or safety. However, with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal—it doesn't clarify scope or parameter usage, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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 but fails to do so. It mentions 'specific ticker' which hints at the 'ticker' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'date' or 'params' parameters at all. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves significant gaps in understanding what inputs are needed.
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 states 'Get detailed information about a specific ticker' which clearly indicates a read operation on ticker data. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'get_snapshot_ticker' or 'list_tickers', leaving the scope ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling 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. With many sibling tools for ticker data (e.g., get_snapshot_ticker, list_tickers, get_last_trade), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others. No context 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it implies a listing function but doesn't disclose details like response format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. Since annotations cover the safety aspect, the description gets baseline credit but lacks enrichment.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all ticker types') and specifies the source ('supported by Massive.com'). Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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 tool's low complexity (a read-only list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with 3 undocumented parameters and no usage guidelines, it lacks completeness for effective agent invocation. The annotations help but don't fully bridge the gaps.
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%, meaning parameters (asset_class, locale, params) are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters—it doesn't mention filtering by asset class or locale, or what 'params' might entail. This fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving parameters semantically unclear.
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 ('List all') and the resource ('ticker types supported by Massive.com'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on ticker types rather than other financial data like exchanges, trades, or aggregates. However, it doesn't specify what 'ticker types' are (e.g., stock, ETF, crypto), which prevents a perfect score.
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., get_exchanges, list_tickers), there's no indication of when ticker types are needed instead of other data types. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.
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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by implying a read operation ('Get a list'). The description adds minimal context by noting 'including combos', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or response format. With annotations covering safety, the description provides some value but lacks depth.
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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word serves a purpose, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage or behavioral context, relying on the output schema for return values. For a tool with many undocumented parameters, more guidance is needed to be fully helpful.
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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'futures products (including combos)', which hints at the resource but doesn't explain any of the 12 parameters (e.g., 'name', 'as_of', 'limit'). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
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 states the tool 'Get[s] a list of futures products (including combos)', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('futures products'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_futures_contracts' or 'get_futures_product_details', leaving the scope vague regarding what specifically differentiates this listing operation.
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. With siblings like 'list_futures_contracts' and 'get_futures_product_details', the description offers no context on prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning the time range, but doesn't disclose other traits like pagination, rate limits, or response format. It doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand 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 complexity (14 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage or behavioral details beyond the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate this tool effectively.
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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'time range' but doesn't explain the 14 parameters (e.g., ticker, timestamp filters, limit, sort). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('trades for a futures contract'), specifying the action and target. It also mentions the time range constraint. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_trades' or 'list_futures_aggregates', which might have overlapping functionality.
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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_trades', 'list_futures_aggregates'), the description lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation provides readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions 'custom time window sizes' which hints at the multiplier/timespan parameters, but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what 'aggregate bars' actually contain. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, this earns a baseline score.
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 - a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. It's appropriately sized for what it does cover, though it could benefit from additional explanatory 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?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, 5 required), 0% schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may explain return values, the description doesn't adequately explain parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral considerations beyond the basic operation. For a tool with this many parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should do much more heavy lifting.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description carries full burden but only vaguely references 'ticker', 'date range', and 'custom time window sizes' (hinting at multiplier/timespan). It doesn't explain what 'aggregate bars' are, doesn't mention the 5 required parameters by name, and ignores 4 optional parameters including 'adjusted', 'sort', 'limit', and 'params'. The description fails to compensate for the complete 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('aggregate bars for a ticker'), and scope ('over a given date range in custom time window sizes'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_daily_open_close_agg' by mentioning custom time windows, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_aggs' or other aggregation 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_daily_open_close_agg', 'get_grouped_daily_aggs', 'list_aggs', or other sibling tools that also retrieve aggregated data. No context about appropriate use cases or exclusions is provided.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about time-range filtering, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), or authentication needs, leaving gaps in transparency.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand 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 complexity (14 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral details beyond annotations, or how it differs from siblings, making it inadequate for guiding an agent effectively.
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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'time range' but doesn't explain the 14 parameters, including ticker, multiple timestamp filters, session dates, limit, sort, and params. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameters ambiguous.
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 quotes') and resource ('for a futures contract'), specifying the scope ('in a given time range'). It distinguishes from general quote tools by focusing on futures, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_futures_aggregates' or 'list_futures_trades' that might also involve futures 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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_futures_aggregates' for aggregated data or 'list_futures_trades' for trade data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
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?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'quotes' entail (e.g., price data). It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers minimal additional value given the annotation's coverage.
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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from more detail given the parameter 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 the complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema details provided in context), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return values, parameter usage, or behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation despite having an output schema (which isn't described here).
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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only mentions 'ticker symbol', covering 1 of 10 parameters. It doesn't explain the purpose of timestamp filters, limit, sort, order, or params, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage and leaving most parameters undocumented.
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 quotes for a ticker symbol' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('quotes'), specifying it operates on a ticker symbol. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'list_trades' or 'list_dividends' by focusing on quotes, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'list_futures_quotes' or 'get_last_quote', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.
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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_last_quote' or 'list_futures_quotes', leaving the agent without context for selection among similar options.
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?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data is returned (though an output schema exists). It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little value.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it may be too brief given the complexity of the parameters.
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 high parameter count (10), low schema coverage (0%), and no output schema details provided in context, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, return values, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively despite having an output schema.
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?
With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'ticker', 'settlement_date', 'limit', or other parameters mean or how they interact, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'short interest data for stocks', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_short_volume' or other data retrieval tools in the same domain, which would require more specificity for a score of 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 alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'list_short_volume', 'list_tickers'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the scope ('across stocks, indices, forex, and crypto') which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'supported' means in practice. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline 3.
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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is limited.
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 complexity (13 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which helps), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the filtering/sorting capabilities, the meaning of 'supported' symbols, or how parameters interact. For a query tool with many filtering options, users need more guidance on how to construct effective queries.
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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the tool has 13 parameters. The description provides no information about any parameters - it doesn't explain what 'ticker', 'type', 'market', 'exchange', 'cusip', 'cik', 'date', 'search', 'active', 'sort', 'order', 'limit', or 'params' mean or how they affect the query. With high parameter count and zero schema coverage, the description 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query supported ticker symbols across stocks, indices, forex, and crypto.' It specifies the verb ('Query') and resource ('ticker symbols') with scope across multiple asset classes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticker_details' or 'get_ticker_types', which prevents a perfect score.
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_ticker_details', 'get_ticker_types', 'list_quotes'), there's no indication of when this list/query tool is appropriate versus more specific tools. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
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?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the data returned (open, close, high, low) and the scope (daily, specific ticker and date), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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: 'Get daily open, close, high, and low for a specific ticker and date.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, financial data), annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. It states what data is fetched but lacks parameter details and usage context, leaving gaps in guidance and semantics.
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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'ticker and date' for two of the four parameters, adding some semantics. However, it omits 'adjusted' (likely for adjusted prices) and 'params' (additional parameters), leaving half the parameters undocumented. This partial compensation is insufficient for the low coverage.
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: 'Get daily open, close, high, and low for a specific ticker and date.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource (daily OHLC data), and identifies key parameters (ticker, date). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_previous_close_agg' or 'get_grouped_daily_aggs', which likely serve similar financial data retrieval functions.
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 sibling tools like 'get_previous_close_agg' for previous day data or 'get_grouped_daily_aggs' for grouped data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the parameter names (ticker, date), with no explicit context.
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?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies 'known by Massive.com' (implying a curated list), but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline 3.
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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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 tool's low complexity (a read-only list), annotations provide safety context, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally complete. However, the lack of parameter guidance and sibling differentiation leaves gaps in contextual 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions none of the three parameters (asset_class, locale, params), leaving their purpose and usage completely unexplained. This is inadequate given the coverage gap.
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 ('List') and resource ('exchanges known by Massive.com'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like 'list_tickers' or 'list_conditions'), which would require a 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 alternatives. With 60+ sibling tools, there's no mention of when this is appropriate (e.g., for exchange metadata vs. other data types) or what distinguishes it from similar listing 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the temporal constraint ('at a specified point in time') which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'details' entail. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but minimal behavioral depth.
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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get details for a single futures contract') and adds necessary qualification ('at a specified point in time'). Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 readOnlyHint annotation and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description doesn't need to cover safety or return values. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidelines, it's minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks depth on parameters, alternatives, and behavioral nuances.
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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only implies the 'as_of' parameter via 'at a specified point in time', but doesn't explain 'ticker' format, 'params' usage, or default behaviors. It fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving most parameter meanings unclear.
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 resource 'details for a single futures contract' with the temporal scope 'at a specified point in time'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_futures_product_details' (product-level) and 'get_futures_snapshot' (snapshot vs details), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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 'get_futures_snapshot' or 'get_ticker_details'. It mentions a 'specified point in time' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks context for selection.
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?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds the temporal aspect ('as it was at a specific day'), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'details' include. With annotations covering safety, this adds some value but not rich 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes all necessary elements (verb, resource, constraint) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema helps, but the description lacks parameter guidance and usage context. It's minimally adequate for a read operation but leaves gaps in parameter understanding and sibling differentiation, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.
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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'product_code' and 'as_of' implicitly but doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters' semantics, formats, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
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 details') and resource ('for a single futures product'), and specifies the temporal constraint ('as it was at a specific day'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_futures_snapshot' (real-time) and 'list_futures_products' (multiple products), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'get_futures_contract_details' or 'get_futures_snapshot'. The agent must infer usage from the description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
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?
The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies 'most recent trade' and 'crypto pair,' which helps scope the query. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, which would be useful given the real-time nature implied by 'most recent.' No contradiction with annotations exists.
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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence ('Get,' 'most recent trade,' 'crypto pair') contributes essential information without redundancy.
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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema details provided in context), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, error cases, or output format. The presence of an output schema (as noted in context signals) might help, but without seeing it, the description alone is incomplete for reliable use.
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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'crypto pair,' which hints at the 'from_' and 'to' parameters as currency symbols, but it doesn't explain their format (e.g., 'BTC/USD'), required values, or the purpose of the 'params' object. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.
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: 'Get the most recent trade for a crypto pair.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('most recent trade'), and domain ('crypto pair'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_last_trade' or 'get_last_forex_quote', which is why it doesn't earn a 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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_last_trade' (which might be for stocks) or 'get_last_forex_quote', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description implies it fetches real-time or recent data but doesn't specify latency, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'most recent' means (e.g., seconds, minutes). It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides little extra value.
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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering perfectly to conciseness principles.
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 tool's low complexity (a simple fetch operation), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on asset type, differentiation from siblings, and parameter details, making it incomplete for optimal agent use without additional inference.
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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'ticker symbol' for the 'ticker' parameter, adding some meaning. However, it doesn't explain the 'params' parameter at all—its purpose, format, or when to use it. With 2 parameters and low coverage, the description compensates inadequately, leaving one parameter undocumented.
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: 'Get the most recent quote for a ticker symbol.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('quote'), and scope ('most recent'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_last_trade' or 'get_last_forex_quote', which have similar naming patterns but target different asset classes.
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_last_trade', 'get_last_forex_quote', 'list_quotes'), there's no indication of whether this is for stocks, forex, or other assets, or how it differs in scope or output from similar tools. This leaves the agent to guess based on naming alone.
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?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations provide 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating a safe read operation. The description specifies it retrieves 'previous day's' data, which adds temporal scope, but doesn't cover other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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 tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, it doesn't fully explain parameter usage or behavioral nuances. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves gaps in understanding how to invoke it effectively.
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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'specific ticker', which aligns with the 'ticker' parameter, but doesn't explain 'adjusted' or 'params'. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving two parameters (adjusted, params) without semantic clarification.
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: 'Get previous day's open, close, high, and low for a specific ticker.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('previous day's open, close, high, and low'), and target ('specific ticker'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_daily_open_close_agg', which might have similar functionality, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 sibling tools like 'get_daily_open_close_agg' or 'get_aggs', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits the agent's ability to choose appropriately.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict this (it describes a 'Get' action). However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover - it specifies the resource type (crypto order book) but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what constitutes a 'snapshot' in this context. With annotations covering the safety aspect, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information. This is an example of appropriate brevity 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?
Given that annotations cover the read-only nature and there's an output schema (so return values don't need description), the description is minimally adequate. However, with 0% schema parameter coverage and multiple similar sibling tools, the description should provide more context about parameter usage and tool differentiation. It meets the bare minimum but leaves significant gaps in a competitive toolset environment.
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 neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'crypto ticker' which helps explain the 'ticker' parameter, but provides no information about the 'params' parameter (what it accepts, its purpose, or why it can be null). With 0% schema coverage and 2 parameters, the description should do more to compensate but only partially addresses one 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 clearly states the verb ('Get snapshot') and resource ('crypto ticker's order book'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all', 'get_snapshot_ticker', or 'get_futures_snapshot', which appear to be related snapshot operations. The description is specific but lacks sibling 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. With multiple snapshot-related siblings (get_snapshot_all, get_snapshot_ticker, get_futures_snapshot, get_snapshot_option, get_snapshot_direction), there's no indication of when this crypto-specific order book snapshot is appropriate versus other snapshot tools. No prerequisites 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description does not contradict this, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—it mentions 'consensus ratings' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., aggregated analyst opinions, scoring methodology) or any operational details like rate limits or data freshness.
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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail.
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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, it lacks sufficient detail on parameter usage and behavioral context, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
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 none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only mentions 'for a ticker', which corresponds to the required 'ticker' parameter, but it does not explain the purpose or usage of the other 7 parameters (e.g., date filters, limit, params), leaving them largely undocumented.
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 ('List') and resource ('Benzinga consensus ratings for a ticker'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_benzinga_ratings', 'list_benzinga_analyst_insights'), which would require specifying what makes 'consensus ratings' distinct.
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'list_benzinga_ratings', 'get_ticker_details'), there is no indication of the specific use case for consensus ratings, prerequisites, or comparisons to other data sources.
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?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description confirms it retrieves historical data but doesn't add details about rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'historical' means (time range, completeness). No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 maximally concise with just four words that directly state the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
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 tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides basic purpose but leaves significant gaps. For a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should do more to explain parameter usage and behavioral context, but the presence of structured data elsewhere prevents a lower score.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description carries full burden but provides no parameter information. 'Get historical cash dividends' doesn't explain what parameters like 'ticker', 'ex_dividend_date', 'frequency', 'dividend_type', 'limit', or 'params' mean or how they affect results. The description fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.
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 cash dividends' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('historical cash dividends'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'list_splits' or 'list_stock_financials' that might also provide historical financial data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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. With many sibling tools available (including other 'list_' tools for financial data), there's no indication of when this specific dividend tool is appropriate versus when to use other data retrieval tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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?
The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It mentions 'in a given time range' which hints at temporal filtering, but doesn't explain what 'aggregates' means, what data is returned, or any rate limits, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics. With annotations covering the safety aspect, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral disclosure.
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 at just one sentence with 10 words. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and temporal scope. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded.
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 complexity (10 parameters, futures-specific tool) and the existence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. It identifies the tool's domain (futures aggregates) but doesn't explain parameter usage, differentiate from siblings, or provide behavioral context beyond the annotations. The output schema existence prevents a lower score, but the description should do more for a tool with this many parameters.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters (only 2 required), the description provides almost no parameter guidance. It mentions 'futures contract' (hinting at the ticker parameter) and 'time range' (hinting at window_start parameters), but doesn't explain the resolution parameter, the various window_start comparison operators (lt, lte, gt, gte), limit, sort, or params. The description fails to compensate for the complete 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 clearly states the action ('Get aggregates') and target resource ('for a futures contract in a given time range'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_aggs', 'list_aggs', or 'get_daily_open_close_agg', which likely provide similar aggregation functionality for different asset types or timeframes.
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. With many sibling tools offering aggregation functionality (get_aggs, list_aggs, get_daily_open_close_agg, get_previous_close_agg, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool specific to futures contracts or how it differs from other aggregation tools in the server.
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?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it's 'paginated,' which is useful behavioral context not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention other important behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'paginated' specifically entails (e.g., cursor-based, page numbers).
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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool and front-loads the key information ('Get a paginated list of futures contracts').
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 complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and pagination behavior, but lacks parameter explanations and usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent 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?
With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only titles without explanations. The description mentions 'paginated' which hints at the 'limit' parameter, but doesn't explain any other parameters like 'product_code', 'first_trade_date', or 'as_of', leaving most semantics undocumented.
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') and resource ('paginated list of futures contracts'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_futures_products' or 'get_futures_contract_details', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes this list operation.
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. With siblings like 'list_futures_products' and 'get_futures_contract_details', there's no indication whether this is for broad listing, filtered queries, or how it relates to other futures-related 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (implying a read operation). The description adds context about fetching schedules for 'multiple futures products', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'trading schedules' entail beyond what annotations provide.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, or sibling differentiation, leaving gaps for an agent to infer correct 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 for 5 undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'a specific date', which loosely relates to 'session_end_date', but ignores 'trading_venue', 'limit', 'sort', and 'params'. This leaves most parameters 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trading schedules for multiple futures products on a specific date'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_futures_schedules_by_product_code' by implying a broader scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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 'list_futures_schedules_by_product_code' or 'get_futures_product_details'. It mentions a 'specific date' but doesn't clarify if this is required or how it relates to parameters like 'session_end_date'.
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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict, as 'Get' implies a read operation. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this. It hints at filtering by trading dates ('across many trading dates'), but does not disclose details like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), sorting options, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, the description provides some value but lacks depth in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, exemplifying ideal 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?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, 1 required), low schema coverage (0%), and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at date-based filtering, but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and sibling differentiation. The output schema may handle return values, but the description does not fully address the tool's operational context, leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage.
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'product_code' and implies date filtering ('across many trading dates'), but does not explain the semantics of the 9 parameters, such as the purpose of 'session_end_date_lt', 'session_end_date_gte', etc., or how 'params' is used. This leaves most parameters ambiguous, failing to adequately supplement the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get schedule data for a single futures product across many trading dates.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('schedule data'), and scope ('single futures product across many trading dates'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_futures_schedules' or 'get_futures_product_details', which could provide similar or related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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, such as needing a valid product code, or compare it to siblings like 'list_futures_schedules' (which might list schedules broadly) or 'get_futures_product_details' (which might provide product metadata). Without such context, an agent may struggle to select this tool appropriately in scenarios with overlapping functionality.
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?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description implies historical data retrieval but doesn't specify format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline score for adding some context about the data type.
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 at just 3 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.
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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema will handle return values, and annotations cover safety, but the description lacks parameter guidance and behavioral details that would make it more complete for an agent.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description carries full burden but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'ticker', 'execution_date', 'reverse_split', 'limit', or 'params' mean or how they affect the query. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('historical stock splits'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many sibling tools (like list_dividends, list_quotes, etc.) beyond the specific data type, so it doesn't reach the highest level of specificity.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what other tools might be better for related tasks (like getting current splits or other financial data). The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'recent news articles,' but doesn't disclose details like rate limits, data sources, or response format. With annotations covering safety, it adds some value but lacks depth.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details and behavioral context, but annotations and output schema mitigate some gaps, making it minimally adequate.
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 for 6 undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'stock ticker,' implying the 'ticker' parameter, but ignores others like 'published_utc,' 'limit,' 'sort,' 'order,' and 'params.' This leaves most parameters 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recent news articles for a stock ticker'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_benzinga_news' or 'list_news', which might offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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. With many sibling tools available, such as 'list_benzinga_news' or 'get_ticker_details', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data is returned. Since annotations cover the safety aspect, the description meets a minimal baseline without contradiction.
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 sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral context, which could be helpful despite the structured data, leaving room for improvement.
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 0% description coverage with one optional parameter ('params') that is loosely defined. The description adds no parameter information, not explaining what 'params' might include or how to use it. With high schema coverage, this would be baseline 3, but here the schema is vague, and the description doesn't compensate, keeping it at a minimal 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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current trading status of exchanges and financial markets'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_market_holidays' or 'list_futures_market_statuses', which might cover overlapping concepts.
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. With many sibling tools related to market data (e.g., 'get_market_holidays', 'list_futures_market_statuses'), there's no indication of scope differences, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies 'most recent trade' which clarifies scope, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but limited behavioral detail.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does, though it could benefit from more context on usage versus siblings. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the need for detailed output explanation in the description.
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%, but there's only one parameter ('ticker'). The description mentions 'ticker symbol,' which aligns with the parameter name but doesn't add semantic details like format examples or constraints. Since parameter count is low (1) and the schema lacks descriptions, the baseline is 3—adequate but with room for improvement.
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: 'Get the most recent trade for a ticker symbol.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('most recent trade'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_last_quote' or 'list_trades', which could provide similar 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 alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_last_quote', 'list_trades'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from others in the context.
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?
The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what data is retrieved ('upcoming market holidays' and 'open/close times'), which is useful beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness that would be helpful for an agent.
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 with just one sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given the tool's simple purpose (retrieving holiday data), the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what data is retrieved. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but for a straightforward read operation, this is acceptable.
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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter information. However, since the parameter appears optional (default: null) and the tool likely functions without it (based on the description's focus on 'upcoming' holidays), the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't add parameter semantics but doesn't need to compensate heavily given the simple parameter structure.
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: 'Get upcoming market holidays and their open/close times.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('market holidays') with additional detail about what information is included ('open/close times'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market_status' which might provide related information, keeping it from a perfect score.
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_market_status', 'list_futures_schedules'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from others that might provide market-related data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the API source (Benzinga v2), mentions real-time retrieval, describes the return format ('consistent format for easy parsing'), and notes filtering capabilities. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination 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 well-structured with a clear introductory paragraph followed by a detailed 'Args' section. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, though the introductory paragraph could be more front-loaded with core functionality. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits. With an output schema present, the description correctly omits return value details. It adequately addresses the gaps left by minimal schema annotations.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, the description compensates fully by providing detailed semantics for all parameters in the 'Args' section. It explains each parameter's purpose, format (e.g., ISO 8601 timestamp for 'published'), filtering logic (e.g., 'arrays that contain the value'), defaults (limit defaults to 100), and constraints (maximum limit of 50000), adding significant value beyond the bare 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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('real-time structured, timestamped news articles from Benzinga v2 API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_ticker_news' by specifying the Benzinga source and structured format. It provides specific details about what is included in articles (headlines, full-text content, tickers, categories, metadata).
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 contexts ('ideal for building alerting systems, autonomous risk analysis, and sentiment-driven trading strategies') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_ticker_news' or other Benzinga tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
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:

[![mcp_polygon MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dev-wraithgt60/mcp_polygon/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dev-wraithgt60/mcp_polygon)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp_polygon MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dev-wraithgt60/mcp_polygon/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dev-wraithgt60/mcp_polygon)

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/dev-wraithgt60/mcp_polygon'

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