Resolve whether a crypto asset is above or below a threshold via multi-source consensus for settlement and verification workflows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fiat | No | usd | |
| symbol | Yes | ||
| direction | Yes | ||
| threshold | Yes | ||
| tolerance_pct | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by revealing the 'multi-source consensus' mechanism, which informs the agent about reliability and potential latency. However, it does not describe pagination, error behavior, or rate limits.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and mechanism. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description provides a high-level purpose but omits return value format, how threshold comparison is performed, the role of tolerance_pct, and any edge cases. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional schemas.
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 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters like fiat, tolerance_pct, or the exact semantics of threshold comparison. It only hints at 'above or below' and 'crypto asset', leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
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's function: resolving whether a crypto asset is above or below a threshold. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'multi-source consensus' and the specific 'threshold' focus, which contrasts with the more general price verification implied by the sibling name get_verify_crypto_price.
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 clear context for use ('settlement and verification workflows') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It implies a specific use case but stops short of naming sibling tools or exclusion criteria.
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 distinct purpose: one provides an overview/catalog, one verifies current price, and one resolves a price threshold. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_verb_noun' pattern (get_resolve_price_threshold, get_stratalize_overview, get_verify_crypto_price), ensuring predictability.
With only 3 tools, the count is slightly low, but the overview tool acts as a discovery mechanism, making the set feel cohesive for a gateway server.
The server claims to cover multiple domains (finance, healthcare, etc.) but only provides crypto-related tools. Core operations like listing assets or historical data are missing, leaving significant gaps.