Live USD price + 24h change + market cap for any crypto symbol (btc, eth, sol, usdc, doge, xrp, ada, link, …). Payment: $0.001 USDC on Base via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Crypto symbol, e.g. btc, eth, sol, doge. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: mentions payment requirement of $0.001 USDC via x402, and the scope of data (USD price, 24h change, market cap). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. While it discloses monetization, it could be more transparent about rate limits, response format, or error handling (e.g., unsupported symbol).
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 two concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality and supported symbols; the second sentence succinctly adds the critical payment detail. Every word earns its place.
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 tool's low complexity (1 simple parameter), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, supported inputs, and payment. However, it could briefly mention what happens for unsupported symbols or whether pagination/format details exist, but with no output schema and simple data, the current level suffices.
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?
The input schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage, already explaining 'symbol' with examples. The description adds value by listing supported symbols (btc, eth, sol, etc.) and clarifying the payment mechanism, which isn't in the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3.
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 verb 'get' implied by 'Live USD price' and specifies the resource: crypto price with 24h change and market cap. It provides an explicit list of supported symbols (btc, eth, sol, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto_market_pulse or base_chain_snapshot which have different focus.
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 when to use this tool: when needing live price, 24h change, and market cap for a specific crypto symbol. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, such as using crypto_market_pulse for broader market analysis or usdc_on_base_stats for USDC-specific data.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: crypto market data, free sample, DNS lookup, URL extraction, JSON repair, and USDC analytics. Even the two crypto tools are differentiated by the free sample variant.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a noun_verb or descriptive style (e.g., crypto_market_pulse, dns_lookup, extract_urls). No mixed conventions.
Six tools is a reasonable count, though the server covers a wide range of utilities from JSON repair to crypto analytics. The count is appropriate but the scope feels slightly scattered.
For a utility server, the coverage is adequate: it provides core functions like JSON repair, DNS lookup, and URL extraction. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no generic text processing), but the stated utilities are well covered.