FreeCrypto: crypto price data and symbol list (100K req/month free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max symbols returned for action=symbols (1-200, default 50) | |
| action | Yes | price=get price for symbols, symbols=list all available | |
| symbol | No | Comma-separated base symbols, e.g. 'BTC,ETH,SOL' (max 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the rate limit, which is a behavioral constraint. However, with no annotations, it lacks detail on side effects, idempotency, or whether it requires authentication.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence covering functionality and a key limitation. No wasted words.
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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks differentiation from siblings and does not explain response format.
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%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not provide extra context beyond what the schema already describes.
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 it provides crypto price data and a symbol list, which aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like 'crypto_derivatives' and 'defi_analytics'. It could be more specific about whether prices are current or historical.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a rate limit ('100K req/month free') but does not indicate when to choose this over other crypto 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.