$0.007 — 5-signal market snapshot bundle — apex_pulse, market_tick, fear_greed, BTC regime, BTC dominance in one call. Saves 83% vs individual ($0.06 value).
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": "market_pulse_bundle"
}
}| 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 burden. It usefully discloses the price point ($0.007 vs $0.06 value) and what data is bundled, but says nothing about freshness/staleness of the snapshot, whether the signals are sampled at a common timestamp, or what the per-signal payload looks like.
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?
A single compact sentence pair with zero filler; the price, the contents, and the value proposition are all front-loaded. The '$0.06 value' clause slightly restates the 83% claim but reinforces rather than wastes space.
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-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema, naming the five constituent signals effectively communicates what comes back and makes the call decision possible. It could go one step further and describe the shape of the combined response or its freshness guarantees.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. No parameter-level semantics are needed or missing.
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 a concrete resource — a 5-signal market snapshot bundle — and enumerates exactly which signals it aggregates (apex_pulse, market_tick, fear_greed, BTC regime, BTC dominance). An agent can distinguish it from the individual sibling tools without opening anything else. The only shortfall is the absence of an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'fetches'.
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?
It clearly frames this as a one-call aggregation that replaces five individual calls and quantifies the saving ('Saves 83% vs individual'), which is an implicit routing instruction toward this tool over its components. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions, and it never addresses free alternatives such as get_free_market_snapshot that appear among the siblings.
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.