7-day TAO price forecast (median + p10/p90 bands) from the local Ephemeris-clone forecaster (Chronos-2).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "tao_forecast"
}
}| 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 full behavioral burden and does disclose the methodology (local Ephemeris-clone forecaster, Chronos-2), which is useful context. It omits refresh cadence, determinism, latency, and any caveat that these are model estimates rather than observed data, so coverage is partial.
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 filler: forecast horizon, output shape, and forecast source each appear once. Nothing can be removed without losing 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?
For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema that already documents the return shape, the description supplies horizon, quantile bands, and model provenance. A brief note on forecast uncertainty or data freshness would close the remaining gap.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline is 4. The description correctly reflects a no-argument call.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('7-day TAO price forecast') and names its outputs (median plus p10/p90 bands) and its source model, which distinguishes it from the spot-price sibling tao_price. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, keeping it just below top marks.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over tao_price, when a forecast is appropriate, or how to interpret the bands. The forecast framing hints at usage but leaves the choice between tools to inference.
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.