Live DePIN/AI-compute divergence radar: current price-vs-onchain- fundamentals audit computed from DefiLlama + CoinGecko (cached 30 min server-side). Includes per-asset z-scores, flags, and a headline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that data is cached 30 minutes server-side, that it is an audit/read-only-style computation, and enumerates output elements. This gives a clear behavioral profile, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free 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?
A single well-structured sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and then packs the key qualifiers (sources, cache freshness, output contents) without redundancy.
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 parameterless radar tool with an output schema, the description is essentially complete: it states scope, data sources, staleness, and output highlights. It could be slightly stronger by pointing at the related miner_divergence tool for comparison, but nothing required to invoke it is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing for the description to add semantically. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 identifies a specific resource ('DePIN/AI-compute divergence radar') and what it provides: a current price-vs-onchain-fundamentals audit computed from DefiLlama and CoinGecko, with per-asset z-scores, flags, and headline. It is distinct enough from siblings such as miner_divergence, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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 'Live... current' phrasing implies it is for getting an up-to-date market/fundamentals divergence overview, and the 30-minute cache communicates freshness expectations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like miner_divergence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.