Get Martingale score and detailed analysis for a specific crypto or stock. Returns score breakdown, parameters, and exchange availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Asset type. Default: crypto. If not found, searches other types automatically. | |
| symbol | Yes | Ticker symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH, AAPL, GOLD) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals safety. The description adds that it returns 'score breakdown, parameters, and exchange availability', which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling. With annotations lowering the bar, this modest addition warrants a 3.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or 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?
For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what it returns and its scope. Minor gaps like omitting the commodity type and auto-search fallback are covered by the schema, and the readOnlyHint removes safety concerns. It is complete enough for an agent.
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% for both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, simply restating that it targets a specific crypto or stock, which matches the 'symbol' parameter. It does not clarify the 'type' parameter's default or auto-search behavior, but the schema already does.
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 'Gets' a 'Martingale score and detailed analysis' for a 'specific crypto or stock'. This distinguishes it from sibling overview tools (e.g., crypto_overview, stock_overview) by focusing on a single instrument and providing a unique score, though it omits the 'commodity' type from the schema.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for a specific symbol but does not mention when to prefer overviews, search_instruments, or other siblings, nor any exclusions.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes. crypto_overview, list_top_crypto, and market_overview all provide top-rated instruments by Martingale Score with Startingale readings, and market_overview subsumes the asset-specific overviews. get_instrument and search_instruments are distinct, but the overview versus list distinction is unclear.
Naming is a mix of verb-first patterns like get_instrument, list_top_crypto, search_instruments, and noun-first patterns like crypto_overview, stock_overview, market_overview. While the conventions are not uniform, the names remain readable and each tool's purpose is reasonably perceivable from its name.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a market analysis server, fitting well within the typical 3-15 range. The set could be trimmed by merging some overview and top-list tools, but the count itself is not excessive or insufficient for the domain.
The tool surface covers discovery (overviews, top lists, search) and detailed information retrieval (get_instrument) for both crypto and stocks. Missing are features like historical data or direct comparisons, but these are not essential for the primary purpose of accessing Martingale scores and analysis.