Retrieve model version, as-of date, factor list, and asset coverage count. Choose 'short' horizon for a responsive variant with halved risk half-lives.
Model version, as-of date, factor list, and asset coverage count.
horizon: "medium" (default) or "short" — the responsive variant with
halved risk half-lives, when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| horizon | No | medium |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the kind of data returned and explains the 'short' horizon behavior as a responsive variant with halved risk half-lives. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free read behavior or what happens if the short horizon is unavailable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the returned contents, and the second sentence explains the only parameter. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main response contents and the parameter variants. Minor gaps remain around fallback behavior when the short horizon is unavailable, but overall it is sufficient for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter `horizon` with its default 'medium', the alternative 'short', and its behavioral meaning. This adds genuine value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear purpose: get_model_info returns model version, as-of date, factor list, and asset coverage count. This is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_model_versions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_model_versions or check_coverage. The horizon parameter is explained, but the description does not state preferred scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.