Reddit attention/alpha score joined with live basis for Hood tokenized stocks: which tokens have social interest AND an on-chain premium/discount at the same time. Fan-out (same post, many tickers) is deduplicated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_alpha | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond annotations by disclosing that fan-out (same post, many tickers) is deduplicated and notes the basis is 'live,' providing freshness context. This is useful behavioral detail not present in structured fields.
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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence provides unique value: purpose in the first, deduplication behavior in the second.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main purpose and key behavioral nuance (deduplication). It doesn't describe the exact return format, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.
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 only parameter, min_alpha, has no schema description, and the tool description does not mention it or explain its meaning, units, or effect. The title 'Min Alpha' and the phrase 'alpha score' give a vague hint, but the description fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage, leaving parameter semantics mostly undefined.
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 joins Reddit attention/alpha with live basis for Hood tokenized stocks, identifying tokens with both social interest and on-chain premium/discount. It includes specific details like fan-out deduplication, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as reddit_alpha_signals or hood_basis_snapshot.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find tokens with simultaneous social interest and basis premium/discount. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, but the unique value proposition implies the appropriate use case.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that separate e.g. hood_basis_snapshot from hood_basis_history and perp_spot_basis. A few clusters like flow_summary vs token_flows and multiple gap/basis tools could still cause slight ambiguity, but the descriptions are strong enough to guide correct selection.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with domain prefixes (hood_, agent_, competition_, partner_), and verbs are used predictably (report_, execute_, get_, etc.). There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic names.
39 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a very broad domain (market data, signals, trading execution, competition, partner APIs, agent reporting). While many tools earn their place, a few could be consolidated (e.g., gap/basis variants), making it feel heavier than necessary for typical usage.
The surface covers the core lifecycle: market data, signals, paper/real/partner trading, position tracking, and performance reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit wallet balance or order cancellation), but the core workflows are well-covered and derived endpoints fill most needs.
