$0.007 — Ultra-minimal regime tick at $0.01 — RANGING/TRENDING/CRISIS/CHOPPY for BTC/ETH/SOL/AVAX. Keys: b=BTC, e=ETH, s=SOL, a=AVAX, t=timestamp. 120s cache.
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": "regime_micro"
}
}| 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the returned regime classes, the abbreviated response keys, and the 120-second cache. It omits error behavior or freshness beyond the cache, but for a zero-parameter tick tool the key behavioral traits are covered.
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 compact and front-loaded with the regime labels, assets, key mapping, and cache interval. The leading price marker ('$0.007 — ... at $0.01') is somewhat confusing and does not clearly earn its place, but the rest is efficient.
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 zero input parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context: what labels are returned, which assets they apply to, the abbreviated key meanings, and the cache duration. It is nearly complete for a minimal tick tool, lacking only guidance on usage relative to alternatives.
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 no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately adds meaning about the response keys rather than implying nonexistent inputs.
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 specific resource and scope: an ultra-minimal regime tick returning RANGING/TRENDING/CRISIS/CHOPPY labels for BTC, ETH, SOL, and AVAX. It is clearly narrower than a generic regime tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'regime' tool by name.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrases 'ultra-minimal' and '120s cache' imply a lightweight polling use case, but the description never states the conditions under which an agent should choose this tool over alternatives such as 'regime'.
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.