riptide_methodologyPublic methodology, safety boundaries, and canonical links.
| 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": "methodology",
+ "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 establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'public' access context and 'canonical links' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as static output, external references, or response structure. No contradiction with annotations.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase is meaningful for identifying the tool's content.
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 empty input schema, safe annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple reference tool. It could specify what 'canonical links' refer to, but this is a minor gap.
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 is complete, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add here.
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 clearly names the resource: public methodology, safety boundaries, and canonical links. It lacks an explicit verb, but it is specific enough to identify what the tool provides and is distinct in scope from the sibling tools.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for retrieving methodology or safety reference material. However, the description never states when to choose it over alternatives or provides any exclusion criteria.
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.