Technical indicators for a token computed from daily closes: RSI(14), SMA20/50, EMA12/26, MACD, with bullish/bearish signals. Send { coin, days? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/analytics/indicators]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | Symbol or coingecko:id | |
| days | No | Lookback days, default 90 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computation basis (daily closes), the indicators included, and the paid nature with price. However, it does not clarify what 'bullish/bearish signals' entail or any potential limitations, rate limits, or authorization requirements beyond the price note.
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 concise with a single sentence summarizing functionality and a bracketed note for pricing/endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key purpose, though the pricing info could be more integrated.
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 the lack of output schema, the description does not explain the return format or structure. It mentions signals but leaves ambiguity. For a tool with two simple parameters, it covers input requirements adequately but omits output details, making it somewhat incomplete.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds the input format 'Send { coin, days? }' but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies for the 'coin' and 'days' parameters.
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 clearly states it computes technical indicators (RSI, SMA, EMA, MACD) from daily closes and provides bullish/bearish signals. It distinctly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling analytics tools like analytics_ohlcv (OHLCV data) and analytics_price_at (price at a point).
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 implies usage for technical analysis but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It mentions it's a paid tool (x402) but provides no guidance on when to use or not use it compared to other analytics 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.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.