Token financial statement (free): DefiLlama protocol/chain TVL, fees & revenue (30d + annualized). Protocol assets get P/F-style income data; L1s get network gas; meme assets honestly report "no on-chain revenue".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Token symbol, e.g. UNI, ETH, PEPE |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data returned (TVL, fees, revenue, 30d + annualized) and how different asset types are treated honestly (e.g., meme assets get 'no on-chain revenue'). This is good transparency, though it lacks details on data freshness or pagination.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.
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 the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what data is returned and the nuance for different token types. Minor improvement: could hint at the return format (JSON).
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% for the single parameter 'symbol', and the schema already provides examples. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate for a simple required parameter.
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 provides token financial statements with specific data (TVL, fees, revenue) and differentiates between protocol assets, L1s, and meme assets. It is specific, uses a verb+resource structure, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like owlx_stock_profile.
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?
While not explicitly stating when to use versus alternatives, the description 'Token financial statement' and the sibling list (owlx_memesniper, owlx_stock_profile, etc.) provide clear contextual cues. For full marks, an explicit alternative comparison would be needed.
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.
