Aggregate news from 44 RSS/Atom feeds: crypto, macro, tech, geopolitics, science. Filter by keyword. No API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feeds | No | Comma-separated feed keys, or 'all' (default). See action=sources. | |
| limit | No | Max articles per feed (1-10, default 5) | |
| action | Yes | latest=fetch articles, sources=list available feed keys | |
| keyword | No | Case-insensitive keyword filter on title+summary |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'No API key required' but lacks information on rate limits, error handling, or the exact format of returned data. Behavioral traits beyond fetching are not addressed.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details (feeds, categories, filter, no API key). 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?
Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and filtering. Missing details about return format (e.g., article fields) and pagination behavior, but sufficient for basic usage.
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 description adds value by elaborating on filtering ('Filter by keyword') and source listing ('See action=sources'), which are not fully captured in schema descriptions alone.
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 aggregates news from 44 RSS/Atom feeds across specified categories and supports keyword filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tradfi_news' by mentioning broad categories (crypto, macro, tech, etc.).
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 implies usage for news aggregation but does not explicitly guide when to use it vs. alternatives like 'tradfi_news' or 'social_trending'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is provided.
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.