rank_trades[STEP 2 — pick the coin] Cross-asset ranking: assembled trade plans for the given coins sorted by setup_score (best first) — answers 'which coin is the better trade right now?'. coins = comma-separated (default BTC,ETH,SOL). Mirrors GET /rank. Analytical, not advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coins | No | BTC,ETH,SOL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it is analytical. It adds useful behavioral context: sorting by setup_score (best first), the comma-separated input format, and the 'not advice' disclaimer.
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. It front-loads the purpose, includes essential parameter details, and avoids filler. Every clause adds value.
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?
For a read-only ranking tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, input format, default, sorting order, and the non-advice caveat. It stops short of detailing the exact return structure, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a critical gap.
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 provides only a default value with no description. The description compensates by explaining that 'coins' is comma-separated and defaults to BTC,ETH,SOL, giving the agent complete understanding of the sole parameter.
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 function: cross-asset ranking of trade plans sorted by setup_score. It directly answers the question 'which coin is the better trade right now?' and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the cross-asset comparative aspect.
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 includes a workflow hint ('STEP 2 — pick the coin') and clarifies it is analytical, not advice. It implies when to use the tool (when comparing coins), but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.
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.