Alias for chart generation; kept for natural plotting language in clients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | ||
| market | No | us | |
| tickers | Yes | ||
| timeframe | No | 2y | |
| company_ticker | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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?
The description discloses that the tool is an alias, which is a behavioral trait, but it reveals nothing about return format, side effects, or requirements. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.
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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not provide enough value to earn its place, offering only a vague alias statement without useful details.
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's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain what the tool does with the tickers, how the parameters influence output, or what the output schema represents. This is inadequate for an AI agent to use correctly.
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 provides no information about the five parameters (tickers, amount, market, timeframe, company_ticker). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the schema itself also lacks descriptions, so the description does not compensate at all.
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 it is an alias for chart generation, which indicates the tool's purpose. However, it does not specify what chart generation entails or how it differs from sibling tools like generate_charts, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The phrase 'kept for natural plotting language in clients' vaguely suggests a use case, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_charts or generate_chart_pack. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
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.
Several tools overlap significantly: plot_charts is an explicit alias for generate_charts, generate_chart_pack and generate_charts have similar purposes, and backtesting tools like backtest_macd_momentum vs backtest_macd_trend_follower or backtest_mean_reversion_rsi_bb vs backtest_rsi_mean_reversion are easily confused. The sector tools also have fuzzy boundaries.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (analyze_*, backtest_*, get_*, generate_*). However, two tools use a 'tool' suffix (analyze_sector_intelligence_tool, find_sector_stock_pipeline_tool) which deviates from the otherwise consistent naming style.
At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end of the acceptable range. The scope is broad (analysis, backtesting, charting, portfolio optimization, alerts), but redundant chart tools and overlapping backtest strategies inflate the count and hurt focus.
The toolset covers the core domain well: technical analysis, backtesting, trade planning, portfolio optimization, quotes, news, and alerts. Minor gaps exist, such as no watchlist management tool (scanning only) and no direct historical data fetch, but these are workable around the existing tools.