Recent crypto headlines with an impact score and the assets each one touches. Impact is a keyword heuristic, not a judgement about the market. Pass hours for "today" or "the last 24 hours"; every headline says how old it is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | Base symbol, e.g. BTC. Omit for everything. | |
| hours | No | Only headlines published in the last N hours, 1 to 168. | |
| limit | No | Default 15, max 40. | |
| minImpact | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / hoursAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Only headlines published in the last N hours, 1 to 168.",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the impact score is a 'keyword heuristic, not a judgement about the market,' and headlines carry an age field. These disclose behavior an agent would otherwise misinterpret.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the impact caveat and the hours hint. No filler sentences; every clause carries information.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully previews the return shape (headlines, impact score, touched assets, headline age). For a 4-parameter, no-required-field read tool this is nearly sufficient; the only missing piece is guidance on minImpact's filter levels.
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 75% — asset, hours, and limit are documented in the schema; only minImpact has an enum but no description. The description reinforces hours semantics ('today'/'last 24 hours') and explains the impact heuristic, but says nothing about minImpact thresholds or the limit parameter, so it does not fully compensate for the gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Recent crypto headlines with an impact score and the assets each one touches.' The 'recent' framing implicitly separates it from the news_history sibling, but the description never names news_history or news_detect_assets, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Offers a concrete usage cue — 'Pass hours for "today" or "the last 24 hours"' — which is a real hint about parameterization. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over news_history or news_detect_assets, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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.