$0.007 — BTC market dominance trend signal for crypto rotation strategy. Returns dominance %, direction, and altcoin rotation bias.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "btc_dominance"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially delivers: it discloses a per-call cost ($0.007) and the three return fields, which is genuine behavioral context beyond structured data. It says nothing about update cadence/freshness of the dominance reading, data source, or whether the signal is a snapshot versus a rolling trend, which matters for a signal an agent may act on.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler; the return contents are stated compactly. The leading '$0.007 —' cost prefix is useful but sits ahead of the purpose, slightly delaying the core 'what it does' statement.
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?
For a zero-param signal tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and return shape, which is close to sufficient. It is missing how to interpret the 'direction' and 'altcoin rotation bias' outputs (thresholds or scale) and how this differs from the adjacent altcoin_season tool.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading argument information is given.
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?
Names a specific resource (BTC market dominance) and states it is a trend signal for a rotation strategy, plus what it returns (dominance %, direction, altcoin rotation bias). An agent can tell this is a dominance-readout tool, though it never explicitly separates itself from siblings like altcoin_season or capital_rotation_signal.
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 'for crypto rotation strategy' implies the usage context, so an agent can infer it belongs to rotation/altcoin allocation decisions. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statements, and no alternative tool is named.
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.