Lite tick — deterministic BTC/ETH/SOL snapshot + fear & greed, no LLM ($0.05 x402); funnel to scan/crypto [PAID — signal credit or x402 USDC. Cost: 1 signal credit ($1.70-$2.49/credit by pack size). Uncredentialed calls return the 402 payment envelope; set X-API-KEY on the MCP connection or pay x402 out-of-band at GET /api/scan/crypto-lite.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds remarkably. It discloses deterministic behavior, absence of LLM, exact cost, payment methods, and the 402 envelope for uncredentialed calls. This gives the agent a complete picture of what to expect beyond the schema.
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, dense run-on sentence packed with payment details, endpoint information, and cost breakdowns. While every piece of information is useful, the lack of structure (e.g., separate sentences or sections) makes it somewhat cluttered. It could be more readable with clearer segmentation.
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?
Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a simple, parameterless snapshot tool. It covers cost, auth, endpoint, and behavioral traits. It does not describe the return structure, but for a 'lite tick' of known asset prices and fear & greed, this is likely adequate.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but the schema itself points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is unnecessary here. Since there are no params to explain, the baseline score is appropriate.
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 provides a 'Lite tick' with a 'deterministic BTC/ETH/SOL snapshot + fear & greed' and explicitly notes 'no LLM', distinguishing it from the full scan_crypto sibling. The verb+resource specification is specific and the tool's scoped functionality is immediately apparent.
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 indirectly signals usage context by referencing 'funnel to scan/crypto' and providing cost comparisons and payment requirements, which implies it is the cheaper, lighter alternative. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, so it does not fully qualify as a 5.
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.
There is significant overlap between scan_* and signal_* tools for the same underlying asset classes, e.g. scan_futures vs signal_futures, scan_racing vs signal_racing, and scan_predmarket vs signal_polymarket. Broader catch-alls like analysis, scan_ask, backtest, and signal_generate also blur the boundary, forcing an agent to parse long pricing details before knowing which tool actually applies.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a clear `scan_` or `signal_` snake_case prefix, which makes the product families easy to recognize. A small set of standalone unprefixed tools — analysis, backtest, instruments, leaderboard, quote, track_record — breaks the pattern, but the overall scheme is still consistent enough to infer.
47 tools is far beyond the practical range for an agent to reason about, even though the server's domain is broad and heavily segmented. Many specialist endpoints could be consolidated under fewer catch-all scanners and signals, but the exposed surface instead forces a large tool-selection decision on every request.
The tool surface covers discovery, cost preview, sample analysis, public track records, leaderboards, broad market scanning, asset-class-specific scanning, sports and event signals, and prediction-market verticals. There are minor gaps in explicit account/credit management and some redundant paths, but for a signal/research service the workflow is largely complete.