[$0.01 USDC per call via x402] One-call market brief: BTC/ETH/SOL prices with 24h change, Fear & Greed index, and top-5 trending coins. Ideal for agents that need a single snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost model upfront ('$0.01 USDC per call via x402'), which is valuable behavioral transparency for an agent deciding whether to invoke this metered tool. It also implies read-only behavior by the nature of a snapshot brief. The fee disclosure is a notable transparency feature beyond typical descriptions.
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 two sentences and front-loaded with the most important info (pricing and one-call nature). Every clause carries meaning. Minor deduction: the pricing disclosure could arguably be structured as separate metadata, but it earns its place given no annotations exist. It's appropriately minimal with no filler.
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 aggregate tool with no output schema, the description reasonably covers what's returned (prices, 24h change, fear/greed, top-5 trending). It could improve by noting the exact data precision/format, but given the simplicity of a snapshot tool with no parameters, this is adequately complete. The aggregate nature across sibling tools is communicated well.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty schema). Per guidance, 0 params = baseline 4. The description adds value by clarifying what data the returned brief contains, which effectively documents the semantics an agent would otherwise learn from parameters. No parameter ambiguity exists since there are none.
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 the verb ('one-call market brief') and lists the exact resources covered: BTC/ETH/SOL prices with 24h change, Fear & Greed index, and top-5 trending coins. This bundles several sibling tool concerns (price, fear_greed, trending) into a single snapshot, clearly distinguishing its all-in-one aggregate purpose from the individual tools.
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 explicitly frames it as ideal 'for agents that need a single snapshot,' giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when NOT to use it, but the breadth of covered data (prices + fear/greed + trending) implies when an agent needs all three at once versus individual sibling tools. A clear use case is stated even without exclusions.
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.
Most tools are distinct by domain (market data, safety, DEX trading, yield, gas), but there is meaningful overlap: token_risk, token_score, and screener all deal with token safety/rug-pull concerns, and screener partially overlaps with trending and token_pairs for discovery. An agent picking between token_risk and token_score could be confused despite the price difference, and screener's safety screening overlaps with both.
All names follow a consistent lowercase noun pattern (fear_greed, gas, ohlc, price, yields, token_pairs, market_summary, etc.), with concise single-word or snake_case single concepts. No verb prefixes, no mixing of conventions, no camelCase. Highly predictable across the whole set.
11 tools for a crypto data API is well-scoped, covering market prices, candles, trending, DEX pairs, token safety, yields, and sentiment. Each tool earns its place with a distinct job, and the count aligns with the breadth of a comprehensive market-data service without becoming bloated.
The surface covers core market data (prices, OHLC, trending, fear/greed), DEX trading (token_pairs, screener), safety (token_risk, token_score), yields, and gas. Minor gaps include no historical yield data, no portfolio/balance tool, and no direct order/trade execution, but for a data-and-safety API the coverage is thorough with no obvious dead ends.
