Use this when the user asks which exchanges are currently available in TraderSpy smart-money tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Tracked exchanges and whether each is currently enabled |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds only context about the data source. It does not describe return format or dynamic behavior, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content, perfectly sized for its simplicity.
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?
With no params, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and use case. Could slightly benefit from mentioning the output nature, but not necessary.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids parameter details since none exist; schema coverage is 100%.
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 returns available exchanges in TraderSpy smart-money tracking, using a clear resource (exchanges) and context, distinguishing it from sibling get_* tools.
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 clear when-to-use guidance ('when the user asks which exchanges are currently available'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
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: market data, signals, trader profiles, and account info are well separated. However, get_elite_leaderboard and get_top_traders both return ranked trader lists and could easily be mistaken for one another despite slightly different criteria.
Every tool uses a consistent get_ prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase (get_candles, get_signal_details, get_trader_profile). The naming pattern is highly predictable and makes the toolset easy to navigate.
15 tools is at the upper bound of the ideal range, but each tool maps to a distinct data surface—market data, signals, traders, leaderboards, and account info. The count feels appropriate for a comprehensive crypto intelligence API.
The toolset covers the core read-only domain thoroughly: price/candle data, technical indicators, signals and their stats, trader rankings and profiles, position history, and account details. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated purpose of a smart-money tracking and analytics service.