btc_intelPaid BTC decision-context snapshot. Use when an agent needs current directional bias, conviction, regime score, technical levels and 72-hour large on-chain transfer activity. This is market intelligence, not individualized investment advice. Read rcq://catalog for current availability and price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment_signature | No | x402 payment authorization for MCP 2026 header-aware clients. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It clearly warns the tool is 'Paid', directs the agent to read rcq://catalog for availability and price, and includes a non-advice disclaimer. This is materially more transparent than a bare 'Get BTC intel' description, though it does not specify failure behavior if payment is missing.
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?
Three compact sentences: what it is, when to use it, and the caveat plus next step. Every sentence earns its place, the primary purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or generic filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the main data categories the agent can expect. It also covers the payment prerequisite and points to the catalog for operational details. It stops short of describing output shape or update frequency, but for a paid snapshot tool the described context is largely sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the payment context by saying 'Paid' and pointing to the catalog, but it does not add practical guidance on how to construct or include the payment_signature beyond what the schema already declares.
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?
Description names a specific deliverable ('BTC decision-context snapshot') and enumerates concrete content: directional bias, conviction, regime score, technical levels, and 72-hour on-chain transfer activity. This clearly distinguishes it from the more specialized siblings like btc_funding_regime or macro_event_risk, even without naming them.
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 explicitly opens with 'Use when an agent needs...' and lists the exact decision inputs this tool provides. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the when-to-use context is strong and actionable.
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 addresses a clearly distinct purpose: DCA accumulation intensity, funding regime compact state, full funding surface, comprehensive BTC snapshot, macro event risk, monthly performance series, and operational status. The only potential overlap is between btc_funding_regime and btc_funding_surface, but the descriptions explicitly differentiate them as a cheap branch-on-state check versus the full surface, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a noun-phrase pattern with domain-prefixed names (btc_, macro_, monthly_, rcq_). They are descriptive and consistent in style, with no mixing of conventions like camelCase or varied verb usage. The naming clearly signals the data domain and specific focus of each tool.
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for a specialized BTC market intelligence oracle. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct data need—regime checks, funding surfaces, macro context, historical series, and operational status—without redundancy or missing core functionality. The count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for its stated purpose: real-time and historical market intelligence, funding regime and surface analysis, DCA strategy indicator, macro risk events, and monthly performance data. The inclusion of a status tool ensures operational reliability. There are no obvious gaps that would cause agent failures, as the domain is clearly scoped to BTC-centric data.