OwlX MemeSniper: 5-gate meme/altcoin pre-filter (volume/buy pressure/sustain/chase/BTC) + conviction grade A/B/C + play type + full Cat-Hunter read. Requires an OwlX Pro key. Real hit-rate of past signals is public via owlx_memestats. Educational info, not financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Base symbol, e.g. WIF, PEPE, DOGE |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses the multi-gate filtering process, output types (grades, play types, Cat-Hunter read), and that it requires a key. It does not cover rate limits or auth details but provides sufficient transparency for an analysis 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?
The description is concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose. It contains no redundant information, though the acronyms could be explained for clarity.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, inputs, and requirements adequately. It does not detail the 'Cat-Hunter read' but that is likely domain-specific. Overall, it feels complete for the given complexity.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'symbol'. The description adds minimal extra context (that it's a base symbol for memes/altcoins), which is consistent with the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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's purpose: a 5-gate pre-filter for meme/altcoins providing conviction grades, play types, and a Cat-Hunter read. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like owlx_memestats by focusing on analysis and filtering rather than statistics or profiles.
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 mentions a prerequisite (OwlX Pro key) and a disclaimer (educational, not financial advice). It hints at an alternative (owlx_memestats for hit-rate), but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus 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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: meme signal generation, signal stats, stock profile, crypto structure analysis, and token fundamentals. No overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the 'owlx_' prefix with a descriptive compound noun (e.g., owlx_memesniper, owlx_stock_profile), ensuring a predictable pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for a trading intelligence server, covering multiple asset classes (crypto, stocks) and analysis types without being excessive.
Covers core intelligence needs: signals, stats, profiles, and structure reads. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no forex or bonds), but within the stated domain it's comprehensive.
