OpenInvest

decisions

Read-only

Get the unified decision ledger: every committee verdict joined with rule interventions, the user's actual executions or refusals (with reasons), and post-hoc outcome data — plus an adoption-rate summary.

Instructions

Answers "how often did I follow the advice", "which recommendations did I skip", and "what did the safety rules rewrite". Read-only. Filter by symbol / verdict to answer questions about one asset or one kind of call; the list is capped at limit (newest first) so a year of history doesn't flood the context — count and summary still cover every match.

Args: days: Look-back window in days (default 90). symbol: Only decisions on this ticker (case-insensitive). verdict: Only decisions with this verdict. limit: Max decisions listed (default 20; 0 = all).

Returns: Object with count (all matches), returned (listed), summary (adoption rate and aggregates over all matches), and decisions (newest first; each entry has decision_id, verdict, confidence, intervention, executed flag, matched trades, and outcome).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Look-back window in days.
`limit`	No	Max decisions listed, newest first; 0 = all.
`symbol`	No	Only this ticker (case-insensitive), e.g. 'GC=F'.
`verdict`	No	Only this verdict, e.g. 'ACCUMULATE', 'HOLD', 'TRIM'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.41.2Oct 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / days / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "default": 20,
+  "description": "Max decisions listed, newest first; 0 = all.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / symbol

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Only this ticker (case-insensitive), e.g. 'GC=F'.",
+  "title": "Symbol"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / verdict

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Only this verdict, e.g. 'ACCUMULATE', 'HOLD', 'TRIM'.",
+  "title": "Verdict"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.31.4Jul 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / days / description
```
Added value: +"Look-back window in days."
```
First observedv0.31.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' line merely repeats that. The genuine added value is behavioral: the list is capped at `limit` newest-first so a year of history doesn't flood context, while `count` and `summary` still cover every match — a non-obvious pagination/aggregation contract the agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its purpose, then use cases, then args and returns in clearly labeled blocks. The Returns block is partly redundant given the output schema exists, but the structure is scannable and every other sentence earns its place.

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?

For a four-parameter, zero-required read tool with a full output schema, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing: the agent knows the default window, the cap semantics, how to filter, and that aggregates cover all matches. Return-value detail is arguably redundant but not a gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema (default 90 days, limit 0 = all, case-insensitive symbol, verdict examples) and adds only the 'newest first' ordering and the rationale for the cap, which is modest incremental meaning.

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 names a specific resource (the unified decision ledger) and enumerates its composition — committee verdicts joined with rule interventions, executions/refusals with reasons, and outcome data — plus an adoption-rate summary. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like `history`, `discipline`, and `explain_decision`, which an agent can rule out from the text alone.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives concrete usage contexts via the quoted questions it answers ('how often did I follow the advice', 'which recommendations did I skip') and tells the agent to use `symbol`/`verdict` for single-asset or single-verdict questions. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or states a when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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