Torus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

impact

Read-only

Simulate a hypothetical event against entities to identify which investment theses it would affect and why, without recording any changes.

Instructions

Dry run: which theses would an event on these entities affect, and why? Records nothing.

Tool call template

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

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entities`	Yes	Entities a hypothetical event touches
`occurred_at`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hits`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as non-destructive, and the description usefully reinforces that with 'Records nothing.' It also indicates the response includes reasoning ('and why'), adding some behavioral context without contradicting 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with the dry-run constraint front-loaded. There is no filler, and the key safety property is stated 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?

For a simple read-only query with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and safety. However, it leaves occurred_at unexplained and gives no guidance on choosing this tool over similar siblings.

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 coverage is 50%. The required entities parameter is described in the schema and echoed in the description, but the optional occurred_at parameter has no description in either the schema or the description. The description does not compensate for this 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 states a specific operation: a dry-run impact query that identifies which theses would be affected by an event on given entities and why. It is more than a restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings such as whatif.

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?

It signals a dry-run use case and says records nothing, but does not explain when to use this versus alternatives like whatif or record_claim. No explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria are provided.

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