Get a market digest with key bullets, trending assets, sentiment analysis, and sources. Returns an AI-generated summary of current market conditions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that the summary is AI-generated, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action ('Get a market digest') and provides concise details.
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 parameters, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and content of the summary, though it could mention the output format.
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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter information 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns a market digest with specific content (key bullets, trending assets, sentiment analysis, sources) and is AI-generated. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_market_cap or get_price_history.
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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context for when-not-to-use or which sibling to choose instead.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: asset details, summaries (current and historical), market cap, market summary, price history, surging/trending assets, and listing assets/market caps. No overlaps.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' for specific queries and 'list_' for enumerations. No mixing of conventions.
10 tools is well-scoped for a market data server, covering all essential read operations without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers all common market data needs: asset details, summaries, market cap, price history, trending/surging assets, and full listings. No critical gaps for a read-only data server.
