riptide_event_marketsPolicy-gated committed Event Intelligence availability, eligible quotes, and gaps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| product | Yes | ||
| available | No | ||
| disclaimer | Yes | ||
| real_orders | Yes | ||
| generated_at | Yes | ||
| execution_mode | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "available": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "disclaimer": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "execution_mode": {
+ "enum": [
+ "paper_only",
+ "read_only"
+ ]
+ },
+ "generated_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "kind": {
+ "const": "event_markets",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "product": {
+ "const": "riptide"
+ },
+ "real_orders": {
+ "const": false
+ },
+ "schema": {
+ "const": "riptide.public.v1"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema",
+ "product",
+ "kind",
+ "generated_at",
+ "execution_mode",
+ "real_orders",
+ "disclaimer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'Policy-gated' (access control) and 'committed' (data finality/state) which provide some extra context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like whether the tool returns partial results or what 'Event Intelligence' means.
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 a single, short sentence, so it is concise in length. However, it is not well-structured; it is a dense noun phrase with stacked modifiers ('Policy-gated committed Event Intelligence availability...') that obscures meaning. It lacks front-loaded clarity, making it harder to parse than if it were a clear verb-first sentence.
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?
Given the tool is simple (0 params) and has an output schema, the description still fails to explain what the tool's purpose is in a way an agent can act on. 'Event Intelligence' is undefined, and the description does not communicate what kind of data or domain this covers. An agent cannot know when to call this tool without additional context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has full coverage (100% vacuous). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters. It adds no parameter information, but none is required.
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 is a noun phrase without a clear verb or resource. It only states 'Policy-gated committed Event Intelligence availability, eligible quotes, and gaps', which does not explicitly say what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, list, query). It is essentially a restatement of the title 'Event Markets' with extra jargon, so an agent cannot infer the tool's exact function.
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 the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, contexts, or conditions under which this tool should be selected. An agent is left without any direction on how to distinguish this from riptide_overview or riptide_risk_evidence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct information area: allocation, crypto record, event markets, methodology, overview, paper record, and risk evidence. The main potential confusion is that riptide_overview aggregates the latest allocation and both paper records, but the descriptions clarify that it is the summary view while the others provide focused details.
All tool names follow the same riptide_ prefix with a clear lowercase noun-phrase pattern. This is consistent and predictable across the entire set.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a public research and status server. Each tool represents a meaningful, non-redundant surface area, and the count is appropriate for the stated domain.
The set covers the core public surface: overview, allocations, paper records, crypto record, event market availability, methodology, and risk evidence. A minor gap is the lack of historical detail or raw risk event data, but that appears intentional based on the safety boundaries described.