get_trade_plan[STEP 2 — plan one coin] Assembled trade plan for one coin: direction, entry, strongest target, stop, risk/reward, sizing hint, options context (put/call + skew), and warnings (max-pain timing against the trade, entry near a liq cluster). Mirrors GET /plan/{coin}. Analytical, not advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists warnings (max-pain timing, liquidation clusters), clarifies the output scope (options context, sizing hint), and includes the important disclaimer 'Analytical, not advice.' This is a rich disclosure of what the tool does and its limitations.
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 concise and front-loaded. It uses a compact list format to convey the plan components, a brief API mirror reference, and a one-line disclaimer. Every part contributes to understanding the tool without unnecessary fluff.
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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what the plan contains and what to expect. It also ties the tool to a specific API endpoint and a step in a workflow, making it functionally complete for an AI agent.
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 0% and the only parameter 'coin' has no schema description. The description says 'plan one coin' which implies the parameter is the coin identifier, but it does not specify format, allowed values, or case sensitivity. This is minimal compensation for the missing schema documentation.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: assembling a trade plan for a single coin. It lists concrete output components (direction, entry, target, stop, risk/reward, etc.) and explicitly mirrors GET /plan/{coin}, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_signal or get_playbook.
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 '[STEP 2 — plan one coin]' prefix provides workflow context, implying this tool is used after a signal selection step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to pick it when a per-coin plan is needed.
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.