Crypto headlines of the last 72 h matching keywords or tickers (all words must match; tickers and asset names like ETH/ethereum map to tags), newest first, with corroboration count. Price: $0.002 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Keywords or tickers, e.g. "ethereum etf", "SOL", "stablecoin regulation" | |
| hours | No | Look-back window in hours, 1-72 (default 72) | |
| limit | No | Max results, 1-50 (default 25) |
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 burden and does well: it discloses the 72h window, that all words must match (AND semantics), ticker-to-tag mapping, sort order, and that results include a corroboration count. It also surfaces a critical constraint — payment of $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base — that an agent must know before invoking; only error/empty-result behavior is unstated.
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?
Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then pricing, with essentially no filler. The first sentence is long and clause-stacked, but every clause adds operational 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, yet the description discloses key return traits (newest-first ordering, corroboration count), and it covers cost/auth requirements. Only edge-case behavior (zero matches, rate limits) is absent, which is minor for a paid search endpoint.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by explaining matching semantics ('all words must match') and the ticker/asset-name-to-tag mapping, which the q schema description does not state. The 'last 72 h' phrase also clarifies the hours parameter's default intent.
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 resource ('crypto headlines'), a scope ('last 72 h'), and a filter mode ('matching keywords or tickers'), which implicitly distinguishes it from cryptonews_top. It stops short of naming the sibling so an agent must still infer which of the two to pick.
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?
Usage is implied by 'matching keywords or tickers' — call it when you have search terms. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to cryptonews_top, so the routing decision between the two crypto tools is left 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.