tradefloor

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Build and preview a roster

build_universe

Read-onlyIdempotent

Create a custom company roster for testing trading strategies. Specify size, seed, sectors, or explicit instruments to produce a universe document for run tools.

Instructions

Build a roster of companies and preview it, either generated from a size and seed (optionally concentrated on chosen sectors) or from explicit instruments you supply. Use it when the default random roster will not do, for example to test one sector or your own companies. Returns a universe document that every run tool takes as universe, with the roster's fingerprint and any envelope warning. Runs no market.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seed`	No	Seed that generates the roster, 0 to 2**64 - 1.
`size`	No	Names in a generated roster, 2 to 120.
`limit`	No	How many instruments the preview lists.
`sectors`	No	Lowercase sector ids to concentrate a generated roster on, for example ["technology", "energy"]. The ids: technology, financial_services, healthcare, energy, consumer_discretionary, consumer_staples, industrials, materials, real_estate, utilities, telecommunications, transportation. A concentrated roster is a named envelope gap, and the result says so.
`instruments`	No	Explicit rows, 2 to 120, in roster order. Each needs ticker, sector (a lowercase id), initial_price and shares_outstanding. Give eps (earnings per share, valued at a sector P/E) or, for a loss-making company, book_value_per_share: a row with neither is refused, because the model would value it at one cent. Optional: revenue_growth, avg_volume, beta, short_interest (a share count, not a fraction). When given, size, seed and sectors are ignored.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'Runs no market,' the returned `universe` document contract that every run tool consumes, the roster fingerprint, the envelope warning, and the fact that sector concentration is a 'named envelope gap' reported in the result.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and construction modes, then the return contract and the 'no market' caveat. No filler sentences; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, the description correctly avoids detailing return values while still pointing to the `universe` key and the fingerprint/warning fields. Usage, behavior, and the downstream contract are all covered for a 5-parameter builder tool.

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 each parameter is richly documented in the schema itself, including the mutual-exclusion rule ('When given, size, seed and sectors are ignored'). The description only restates the same two-mode grouping at a high level, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build a roster of companies and preview it') and immediately names the two construction modes: generated from size/seed (optionally sector-concentrated) or from explicit instruments. This distinguishes it from the neighboring build_scenario / run_stress_scenario tools, which consume a universe rather than construct one.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when the default random roster will not do, for example to test one sector or your own companies.' It also clarifies the tool runs no market, so an agent knows not to expect simulation output. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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

Deploy Server