OwlX structure-score read of a crypto symbol: 0-10 score, LONG/SHORT/WAIT direction, trigger & defense levels, confirmation checks. Free for BTC/ETH; other symbols need an OwlX Pro key (Authorization: Bearer). Educational info, not financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Base symbol, e.g. BTC, SOL, WIF | |
| timeframe | No | Candle timeframe (default 4h) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Disclaims educational nature and mentions authorization needs. However, with no annotations, the description misses explicit statement of read-only behavior or safety profile. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Each sentence adds value (purpose, auth disclaimer, educational note). 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 no output schema, description explains return values (score, direction, levels). Covers auth constraints and use case. Could mention timeframe parameter but schema covers that.
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%, so parameters are already described. Description adds no extra semantic meaning for the parameters beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states verb ('read') and resource ('OwlX structure-score of a crypto symbol') and lists specific outputs (score, direction, levels). Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the name and context make it distinct.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on free usage for BTC/ETH and requirement of OwlX Pro key for other symbols. Does not cover when not to use this tool vs alternatives, but siblings are sufficiently different.
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.
