Crypto Fear & Greed Index: current value, historical data, and real-time granular readings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Days of history (1-365, default 30) | |
| hours | No | Hours of realtime data (1-192, default 24) | |
| action | Yes | current=latest index, history=past N days, realtime=5min intervals |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the three output modes (current, history, realtime) which partially covers behavior, but it omits details like rate limits, data source, or what happens on errors. The description is minimally 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 a single concise sentence with good front-loading of the key concept. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing the three capabilities explicitly), but it is efficient with 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 the lack of an output schema, the description should provide more detail about what the tool returns (e.g., numerical index, classification labels). It only hints at the output format. For a tool with many siblings, this incompleteness may hinder correct selection.
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 three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 identifies the tool as the Crypto Fear & Greed Index and specifies three distinct capabilities: current value, historical data, and real-time granular readings. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like derivatives_sentiment or crypto_market.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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.