Crypto market data via ccxt exchange. Covers: price, klines (OHLCV), 24h ticker, multi-symbol price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (1-500, default 50) | |
| action | Yes | Action to perform: price, klines, ticker_24h, multi_price. | |
| symbol | No | Trading pair, e.g. BTC/USDT | |
| symbols | No | Comma-separated symbols for multi_price | |
| exchange | No | Exchange name (default: Binance) | |
| timeframe | No | Kline timeframe, e.g. 1h, 4h, 1d (default: 4h) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions data source (ccxt exchange) but does not reveal important traits like rate limits, data freshness, idempotency, or safety (read-only assumption not stated). This is insufficient for a data-fetching tool.
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 concise sentences that are front-loaded and without wasted words. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose and data source, second enumerates covered data types.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, pagination (limit parameter), or how to construct multi-symbol requests. The tool's complexity demands more detail for an agent to use it correctly.
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 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing action options in prose, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. 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?
The description clearly states the tool provides crypto market data via ccxt exchange and lists specific data types (price, klines, ticker, multi-symbol price). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_market or crypto_price, which likely have similar purposes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crypto_market or crypto_price. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, best practices, or when not to use it, which is critical given the many sibling tools.
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.
Multiple tools overlap in providing crypto price data (crypto_price, crypto_market, crypto_derivatives, global_assets) and news (news_feed, tradfi_news). While descriptions clarify some differences, agents may struggle to choose between similar tools.
Tool names mix styles: some are simple nouns (backtest, cn_market), others compound nouns with underscores (crypto_derivatives, derivatives_sentiment). No consistent verb_noun pattern, making it harder to infer purpose from name alone.
With 19 tools covering a broad domain (crypto, DeFi, macro), the count feels slightly high but justifiable. However, several tools could be merged to reduce overlap and improve navigability.
The tool set covers a wide range of market intelligence needs: price data, technical analysis, sentiment, macro indicators, news, and DeFi. Minor gaps like on-chain analytics or direct trading are acceptable given the intelligence focus.