[marketsummary] Real move or just the majors? Market breadth over our tracked crypto set.
Free = advance/decline (how many up vs down today). Premium = + the 1h intraday pulse (freshest read) + relative-strength breadth (how many lead vs lag BTC). Breadth of OUR tracked set, not the whole market; stated as such. Not financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | ||
| session_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool covers only 'our tracked set' not the whole market, explains the free/premium data components, and includes a disclaimer. This provides useful behavioral context beyond a basic read 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?
Description is moderately concise but includes some redundant phrasing ('stated as such', 'Not financial advice') and a bullet-like structure. It is front-loaded with a question but could be tighter without losing substance.
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 no output schema and 2 parameters, the description explains the data components (advance/decline, intraday pulse, relative-strength) and scope. However, it omits return format, examples, and parameter handling, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 0% with two parameters ('payment', 'session_token') left unexplained. Description does not clarify their meaning, format, or impact. The free/premium distinction relates to payment but is not explicitly linked to the parameter. This is a critical gap.
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 tool returns market breadth over a tracked crypto set, with a specific verb 'get' and resource 'market breadth'. It distinguishes free vs premium features but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market_summary' or 'get_trending', so not a perfect 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Hints at free vs premium use cases but lacks context on prerequisites or when to prefer other sibling tools. Agents are left to infer usage.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of market analysis or token safety, with clear descriptions that avoid overlap. Tools like find_longs and find_shorts are opposites, and other get_* tools each address unique metrics (e.g., buzz, attention shifts, smart money flow). No two tools have ambiguous boundaries.
Tools are prefixed by category (marketsummary__, tokensafety__, verify__), and most use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_liquidity, find_longs). However, there is some variation: 'ask_market', 'track_narrative', and longer names like 'attention_vs_price_divergence' break the pure 'get_' pattern. Overall, the naming is logical and predictable.
With 24 tools, the server covers a wide range of crypto market analysis, from general summaries to specific signals (e.g., conviction gap, smart money flow) and token safety. The count is well-scoped for the domain; each tool serves a clear purpose without being excessive.
The tool set is comprehensive for a market analysis server: it includes natural language querying, trend detection, sentiment, liquidity, whale activity, safety checks, and wallet verification for premium access. Missing trading actions are outside the stated purpose, so no gaps are apparent.