Get the Crypto Fear & Greed index — composite 0-100 score, label, 7-factor breakdown, recent history (use fear_greed_monthly for long-term trends) — 7-factor crypto Fear & Greed sentiment index with the current score, label, contributing factors, and recent history. Cached ~5min.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the data composition (score, label, factors, history) and caching behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, though this is implied.
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 long with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and includes essential details efficiently.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers all necessary information: what the tool returns, caching cadence, and relationship to sibling tools. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand and use the tool.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not detract from clarity.
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 retrieves the Crypto Fear & Greed index, listing key components (score, label, 7-factor breakdown, recent history). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'fear_greed_monthly' by mentioning long-term trends, making the purpose specific and distinct.
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 provides explicit usage guidance by directing users to 'fear_greed_monthly' for long-term trends, helping agents choose the correct tool. It also notes caching (~5min), which is relevant for usage decisions.
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 have distinct purposes, but there are a few pairs with overlapping boundaries (e.g., analysts_signals vs analysts_signals_all, whale_movements vs whale_movements_summary) that could cause minor confusion.
Naming is predominantly snake_case and descriptive, with minor inconsistencies in plural/singular forms (e.g., 'analysts' vs 'analyst_archive'). Overall pattern is stable.
With 55 tools, the server is quite heavy. While the scope is broad, many tools are history/monthly variants that could be combined, making the count feel inflated beyond what is ideal for a single server.
The tool set covers a wide range of crypto analytics domains (analysts, arbitrage, funding, whales, sentiment, etc.). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct token price endpoint), but overall it's a comprehensive surface.