Top crypto stories of the last N hours, deduplicated across 13 outlets and ranked by number of distinct outlets reporting them, then recency: headline, outlets, links, firstSeen, asset/theme tags. Price: $0.002 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Look-back window in hours, 1-72 (default 24) | |
| limit | No | Number of stories, 1-50 (default 20) |
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 ranking/dedup algorithm, the exact output fields (headline, outlets, links, firstSeen, tags), and — critically — the payment mechanism and cost ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base), which affects invocation planning. It stops short of rate limits, failure modes, or what happens when fewer than N hours of news exist.
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?
Two dense sentences with the core purpose and ranking logic front-loaded; no filler. The output-field list and pricing are slightly compressed into the tail, but every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 and no annotations, yet the description covers purpose, ranking semantics, return fields, and the payment requirement — enough to call it correctly. Minor omissions are behavioral edges (empty/short windows, pagination behavior beyond limit).
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 description coverage is 100% with ranges and defaults already documented for hours (1-72, default 24) and limit (1-50, default 20). The description only echoes 'last N hours' and adds no format, interaction, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and scope: 'Top crypto stories of the last N hours,' plus the exact ranking logic (distinct-outlet count, then recency) and the source pool (13 outlets). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling cryptonews_search, leaving the agent to infer 'top/ranked' vs 'search'.
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 only implied by the phrase 'Top crypto stories' and the deduplication/ranking rationale. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to cryptonews_search for keyword/topic lookups, which is the obvious alternative.
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.