get_cross_asset_flows[CONTEXT] Cross-asset flows: crypto rotation, crypto-vs-tradfi OI split, institutional posture (ETF flow / COT / 13F, descriptive). Answers 'where are funds going and is the market buying something other than crypto?'. Mirrors REST /flows. ETF flow is proven non-predictive. Not advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is 'descriptive', the ETF flow is 'proven non-predictive', and the tool provides 'not advice'. These disclosures go beyond the read-only flag, informing the agent about the nature and limitations of the data.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that covers context, content, purpose, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the topic and uses the [CONTEXT] marker effectively. Every word contributes value, making it an excellent example of concise writing.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data the tool returns (crypto rotation, OI split, institutional posture via ETF flow/COT/13F). It does not describe the exact return format, but for a no-param tool with this level of substance, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and with 0 params the baseline is 4. No additional parameter information is required.
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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: it provides cross-asset flows data, covering crypto rotation, crypto-vs-tradfi OI split, and institutional posture. It also distinguishes itself by framing the question it answers ('where are funds going and is the market buying something other than crypto?') and referencing REST /flows, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_rotation or get_macro.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, namely when analyzing cross-asset flows and institutional positioning. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions but still offers a clear use case.
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.