Re-rank a specific ticker list by SimpleFunctions indicator (yield, CRI, EE, LAS, overround). For "of these N markets, which has best yield?" workflows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Indicator to sort by (e.g. iy, cri, ee, las, overround) | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| tickers | Yes | Comma-separated tickers |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool re-ranks a list (implying a read-only operation) and lists the indicators, but it does not disclose the output format, whether the original list is modified, or any limitations. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core action and the second providing a concrete example. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple with fully-described parameters and a clear purpose. The description covers the main workflow, but since there is no output schema, a brief note on the return value (e.g., re-ranked list with indicator values) would improve completeness.
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 100%, so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds context about the intended use case (ranking a subset of markets) but does not add new parameter-level details beyond repeating the indicator list.
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 uses a specific verb ('re-rank') and resource ('specific ticker list'), and lists the indicators (yield, CRI, EE, LAS, overround). It also provides an example workflow, which clearly distinguishes it from market-wide screening tools like 'screen_markets'.
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 description gives an explicit use case: 'For "of these N markets, which has best yield?" workflows.' This indicates when to use the tool but does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it's clear but not fully explicit.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple market query tools (scan_markets, screen_markets, get_market_detail, get_market_diff, get_market_history, inspect_ticker) and legislative tools (legislation, get_legislation, list_legislation, query_gov). Aliases like get_heartbeat_config/get_heartbeat_status and explore_public/explore_theses add further confusion. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool without deeply reading each description.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_), but there are notable deviations: 'legislation' lacks the 'get_' prefix, 'stt' and 'tts' are acronyms, 'monitor_the_situation' is a full phrase, and 'x_account/x_news/x_volume' use a non-standard prefix. The overall style is readable, but the mixed conventions reduce predictability.
108 tools is extreme for any server, even one covering prediction markets, trading, portfolio management, forum, skills, and speech. The massive surface area overwhelms agents and makes the server feel more like a platform than a coherent toolkit. This many tools inevitably leads to redundancy and maintenance burden.
The server covers an impressively broad domain: market data, thesis management, intents, strategies, positions, portfolio, forum, skills, legislative and economic queries, and audio/visual processing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete for skills/theses, no update for some portfolio items) but core workflows are well-supported. Overall lifecycle coverage for most entities is strong.
