$0.007 — Composite crypto Fear & Greed index 0-100 with APEX market regime context and autonomous trading bias. Times DCA accumulation entries and market tops for BTC, ETH, SOL, AVAX.
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": "fear_greed"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 0-100 output range and that a regime context and trading bias are bundled in, but says nothing about refresh cadence, data sources, latency, or whether the bias is advisory only. The '$0.007' price note is the main concrete disclosure, which is thin for an unannotated tool.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the price and the core metric. The second sentence jams together two distinct ideas (DCA timing and topping signals) plus an asset list, and the APEX/bias phrasing is jargon-dense without unpacking.
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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description must convey what comes back. It gives the 0-100 range and the component concepts, but the actual return shape and how the 'autonomous trading bias' should be interpreted remain undefined.
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. The description's mention of asset coverage (BTC, ETH, SOL, AVAX) adds scope information the empty schema cannot convey.
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 names a specific resource: a composite crypto Fear & Greed index scored 0-100, plus APEX regime context and a trading bias. It adds scope and intended use (timing DCA accumulation and market tops) across BTC, ETH, SOL, AVAX. It never explicitly differentiates itself from plausible siblings such as fg_micro or regime, so it stops short of a 5.
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 by 'Times DCA accumulation entries and market tops,' which signals when an agent would reach for it. There is no statement of when not to use it, and no reason given to prefer this over fg_micro, regime, or apex_composite, which plausibly overlap in scope.
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.