apex_run_kelly_sizerAdvisory fractional Kelly sizing math from supplied win rate and average win/loss facts. DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required, no orders, no wallet/account access. Not financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regime | No | ||
| avg_win | Yes | ||
| avg_loss | Yes | ||
| win_rate | Yes | ||
| confidence | No | ||
| max_fraction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'no HMAC required, no orders, no wallet/account access' and 'Not financial advice,' adding valuable safety and operational context. It does not contradict 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 concise—three short sentences—front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No redundant filler.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a fraction, a recommendation), but it only says 'advisory math.' It also omits explanation of optional parameters, leaving the tool incompletely specified for a 6-parameter function.
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 description only mentions 'win rate and average win/loss facts,' which partially maps to the required params, but the optional params (regime, confidence, max_fraction) are not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to fully compensate for parameter semantics.
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 states the tool computes 'fractional Kelly sizing math' from specific inputs, distinguishing it from sibling analytics tools. The verb 'sizing' and resource 'Kelly criterion' make the purpose unambiguous.
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 context is implied (when you need Kelly sizing from win rate and average win/loss), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor when not to use it. The 'DATA ONLY' note gives some constraint but not a full usage policy.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions provide sufficient boundaries. Some run_* analytics tools (e.g., deflated_sharpe vs empyrical_metrics) could be conceptually confused, but their specific inputs and outputs minimize ambiguity.
All tools share the apex_ prefix, and the verb_noun pattern is consistent (get, query, run, submit). The 'agent_' subgroup within run tools introduces a minor irregularity, but it remains readily comprehensible.
With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy side, falling into the 16-25 range. Many run_* tools are similar in nature (pure calculations), but each appears to serve a specific purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The server name implies a card store, yet the tool surface only supports reading and querying cards, with no create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap that prevents full lifecycle management, though the analytics side is fairly comprehensive.