Real recorded hit-rate of OwlX MemeSniper signals (free): every signal is logged at fire time and graded against actual prices 4h/24h later — wins AND losses. No cherry-picking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description transparently describes the methodology: signals are logged, graded against actual prices, and both wins and losses are included with no cherry-picking. This fully discloses the tool's behavior.
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?
Single sentence front-loads the key purpose and provides essential details (free, grading windows, honesty policy). No wasted words.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and its methodology, making it complete for an agent to understand.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info because none is needed.
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?
Description explicitly states the tool provides 'real recorded hit-rate' of signals, graded against actual prices 4h/24h later, including wins and losses. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'owlx_mememesniper' by focusing on performance stats.
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?
Description implies usage for checking signal performance but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance relative to alternatives. However, context from sibling tools makes it reasonably clear.
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.
