veto

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check

Evaluate a long-call reading against fixed pass, fail, or watchlist rules; returns the verdict and fails any rule missing required data. Does not recommend trades.

Instructions

Decide whether a long-call reading passes a fixed set of rules. Returns pass, fail, or watchlist. It does not recommend a trade, and a missing number fails the rule that needs it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rsi`	No	rsi
`price`	No	price
`spread`	No	spread
`iv_rank`	No	iv_rank
`long_dte`	No	long_dte
`short_dte`	No	short_dte
`gap_percent`	No	gap_percent
`catalyst_days`	No	catalyst_days
`earnings_days`	No	earnings_days
`earnings_plan`	No	earnings_plan
`hours_to_fomc`	No	hours_to_fomc
`analyst_target`	No	analyst_target
`macd_histogram`	No	macd_histogram
`long_strike_steps`	No	long_strike_steps
`short_strike_steps`	No	short_strike_steps
`short_expires_before_earnings`	No	short_expires_before_earnings

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two real traits: the output is a tri-state verdict (pass, fail, watchlist) and validation is fail-closed ('a missing number fails the rule that needs it'). It does not reveal the rule set, thresholds, whether the check is deterministic, or that all 16 parameters are optional in the schema yet conditionally required to pass.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the verdict values immediately after. The scope disclaimer and fail-closed note both earn their place. Minor waste: 'fixed set of rules' gestures at a rule set the agent can never see, spending words without conveying behavior.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 16-parameter evaluation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and uninformative parameter descriptions, the definition is thin. It never states the units or acceptable ranges for rsi, spread, gap_percent, or iv_rank, nor which inputs drive which verdicts, leaving an agent unable to assemble a valid reading with confidence.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is nominally 100%, but every schema entry merely restates the parameter name ('rsi': 'rsi'), so the effective documentation is near zero. Per the high-coverage baseline this lands at 3, and the one genuine addition is the note that omitting a value fails the dependent rule, which explains why 0 required parameters still matters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Decide whether a long-call reading passes a fixed set of rules.' The domain is clear (options long-call screening) and the returned verdicts are enumerated. There are no sibling tools to distinguish from, so no differentiation credit is available or needed.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has a long-call candidate reading to screen. There is one useful negative scope statement ('It does not recommend a trade'), but no guidance on prerequisites, when not to call, or what constitutes a complete reading to submit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

checkB