FREE taste of the paid /api/market-pulse ($0.05): real BTC price + engine status with CVD/OI/whale fields redacted. Use to evaluate data quality before paying. No payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the free nature, the fact that data is real, and that specific fields are redacted. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a simple preview tool this is adequate and non-contradictory.
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?
Two sentences that are front-loaded and free of fluff. Every clause adds value: free trial, endpoint cost, data included, what's redacted, and the intended use case.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool offers, why to use it, and the limitations, making it suitable for selection without needing further context.
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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no param info, but none 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 it is a free preview of the paid /api/market-pulse endpoint, specifying the exact data included (BTC price, engine status) and what is redacted (CVD/OI/whale fields). This distinguishes it from sibling preview tools like preview_order_flow and preview_trade_idea.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use to evaluate data quality before paying.' It also notes 'No payment required,' implying this is a trial before using the paid call_paid_endpoint. This gives clear context for selection.
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 are clearly distinct (list, preview, sign, escrow state), but get_quote and call_paid_endpoint both return pricing and latency for endpoints, which could cause misselection. The three preview tools are similar but target different endpoints.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (call_, get_, list_, preview_, sign_). No camelCase or mixed conventions.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of endpoint discovery, quoting, previewing, and escrow verification. Each tool covers a distinct need without bloat.
The server lacks tools for actually executing paid endpoints or creating escrow jobs, and there is no way to list escrow jobs by client or provider. It focuses on planning and verification, leaving execution to external mechanisms, which is a notable gap for a trading-focused server.
