get_correlation[DRILL-DOWN] Return-correlation + beta of a coin to BTC and ETH over a 7d window of 15m log returns, plus its most/least correlated peers. Descriptive statistic (correlation is not causation). Same data as REST /correlation/{coin}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | ||
| to_btc | No | ||
| to_eth | No | ||
| disclaimer | No | ||
| most_correlated | No | ||
| least_correlated | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that this is a 'Descriptive statistic (correlation is not causation)', warning against causal interpretation, and notes it mirrors REST /correlation/{coin}, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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, with the main functionality in the first sentence and a caveat/reference in the second. Every element adds value; no filler.
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 the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and an output schema, the description covers the computation window, base assets, peer list, and the REST equivalent. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect.
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 schema lists a single required 'coin' parameter with no description, and the description only says 'of a coin' without specifying expected format (e.g., symbol vs name). With 0% schema coverage, this leaves the parameter semantics largely undefined.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('correlation + beta of a coin to BTC and ETH'), along with the window and peers, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_signal.
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 '[DRILL-DOWN]' prefix signals this tool is for detailed correlation analysis of a single coin, giving clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid it, but the unique purpose makes usage context clear.
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 clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are clusters of similar concepts (e.g., get_liquidity_map vs get_liquidation_map, get_state vs get_state_brief, multiple signal-related tools) that could cause misselection despite thorough documentation.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern, predominantly get_* nouns, with only a few non-get verbs like list_signals, rank_trades, log_trade, etc., but the style is uniform.
With 52 tools, the surface is extremely heavy for an agent to navigate. While the server's scope is broad, the count far exceeds the typical 3-15 range and falls into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle for journaling, signals, market analysis, and proof, with no major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated get_trade_by_id (workaround via get_journal) and no get_market_state tool despite being referenced in get_state.