Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Lightyear Portfolio Summary

lightyear_portfolio_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute current holdings and cost basis from a Lightyear account statement to verify investment account balance.

Instructions

Compute current holdings and cost basis from a Lightyear account statement. Useful for verifying investment account balance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_refNoOpaque Lightyear AccountStatement file reference.
file_pathNoAccountStatement path/base64 input. Provide exactly one of file_path or file_ref.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.25.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / file_path / description
      Previous value: -"Absolute path to Lightyear AccountStatement CSV file."New value: +"AccountStatement path/base64 input. Provide exactly one of file_path or file_ref."
    • addedInput schema / properties / file_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Opaque Lightyear AccountStatement file reference.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "file_path"
-]
  3. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose: no input constraints (the exactly-one-of file_path/file_ref rule), no error behavior, no determinism notes, no output shape. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, little value is added.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the computation before the use case. No filler, though the second sentence is thin and could carry more routing value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only computation tool with no output schema, the description leaves the return shape unspecified (what a 'portfolio summary' contains, currency handling, per-position detail) and does not restate the one-of input requirement. An agent can call it, but cannot anticipate the result.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the mutual-exclusion rule for file_path/file_ref. The description adds no parameter detail whatsoever, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Compute') and precise outputs ('current holdings and cost basis') from a named source ('Lightyear account statement'). It is distinguishable from siblings like parse_lightyear_statement or parse_lightyear_capital_gains, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Useful for verifying investment account balance' implies a use case but gives no when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or guidance on choosing it over parse_lightyear_statement or parse_lightyear_capital_gains. Usage must be inferred.

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