Get canonical platform metrics — tracked wallets, chains, win rate, BTC benchmark — Canonical platform metrics: tracked wallets, chains, tokens, tools, languages, supported chain list, plus a safe aggregate performance subset (win rate, average return, BTC benchmark). Cached ~60s. Response includes meta.updatedAt (ISO timestamp of when the response was generated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description properly discloses caching duration and the presence of a timestamp. This is adequate for a read-only tool, but does not mention any authorization or other behavioral details.
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 short (two sentences) but slightly redundant, repeating 'canonical platform metrics'. It front-loads the main purpose and provides necessary 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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its caching behavior. No critical information is missing for a simple retrieval 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no signal. The description compensates by listing the exact contents of the response, adding meaning beyond the empty schema.
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 retrieves canonical platform metrics and enumerates the specific metrics included (tracked wallets, chains, win rate, BTC benchmark, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a broad aggregate overview.
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 notes caching behavior (~60s) and the updatedAt timestamp, implying the tool is for fresh data but not stale. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like live_stats or market_context.
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.