OHLC price history for a crypto symbol via the CoinGecko public API, with a min / max / change summary. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look-back window in days (default: 7). | |
| symbol | Yes | Crypto ticker (e.g. BTC, ETH) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only and free, which is good for a tool with no annotations. However, missing details like rate limits, output format, or pagination. Annotation burden fully on description.
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 sentences, direct and informative. No filler words. Every sentence adds value (purpose, data source, summary, cost).
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 no output schema, description hints at return values (OHLC, min/max/change). Covers purpose, behavior, and cost. Adequate for a simple two-parameter 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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds minimal value beyond stating the output includes OHLC and summary. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states it provides OHLC price history for a crypto symbol, with a summary. Distinct from siblings like price_oracle_crypto_price (current price) and price_oracle_convert (conversion).
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?
Implicitly suggests use for historical price data, but no explicit when/when-not or comparison to siblings. Mentions 'free' and 'CoinGecko public API', but lacks alternatives.
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 are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.