On-chain public data (no API key): ETH gas prices, BTC recommended fees, mempool stats, and recent blocks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | eth_gas=Ethereum gas prices, btc_fees=recommended BTC fees, btc_mempool=mempool stats, btc_blocks=recent blocks |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and public, listing specific data types. It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or response structure, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.
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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's functionality.
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 parameter set and no output schema, the description is fairly complete in telling what data is returned. However, it could specify the output format or structure to reduce uncertainty for the 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 100% and the schema already describes the enum values in detail. The description adds no extra parameter meaning. A baseline score of 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 specifies the tool provides on-chain public data including ETH gas prices, BTC recommended fees, mempool stats, and recent blocks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on market, sentiment, and other financial data.
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 states 'On-chain public data (no API key)' indicating free access, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like crypto_market or crypto_price.
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.