resolve_tickerDoes a bare ticker actually mean the crypto asset?
verdict 'crypto' means mentions are about the asset; 'equity'/'other' means the bare word is dominated by something else (TIA is Spanish 'tia'; GRT collides with 'graph'). A 404 is NOT a clean bill of health — it means nobody has adjudicated that ticker yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses important behavior beyond annotations: the meaning of each verdict and the critical 404 semantics ('A 404 is NOT a clean bill of health'). This adds real decision-relevant context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core question. The examples and 404 caveat earn their place by preventing misinterpretation without bloating the definition.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return semantics and the most important edge case (404). It could mention other possible error or empty responses, but the essential context for correct invocation is present.
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 0% for the 'ticker' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the parameter is a 'bare ticker' and gives examples (TIA, GRT), but it does not specify formatting details such as case, symbol inclusion, or exact accepted forms.
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 states a clear, specific purpose: determining whether a bare ticker refers to the crypto asset. It distinguishes this from simple asset lookup by explaining the verdict categories ('crypto', 'equity', 'other').
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 establishes a clear context for use: when a bare ticker may be ambiguous and needs adjudication. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the intent is clear enough for an agent to route to this tool.
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.