Get a comprehensive overview of current market conditions across crypto and stocks. Shows top 5-10 instruments ranked by Martingale Score (0-5), with their Startingale readings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds valuable transparency about the output: the top 5-10 instruments and the ranking metric. This goes beyond the annotation by describing the result set's composition. No further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination) are needed for a simple read-only tool.
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 purpose and immediately followed by output specifics. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 parameterless read-only tool, the description fully explains what it does and what it returns. It covers the scope (crypto and stocks), the ranking metric, and the size of the result set. No output schema is present, but the description itself serves as a sufficient output specification.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to explain. The schema description coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.
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 comprehensive market overview across crypto and stocks, with specific output details (top 5-10 instruments ranked by Martingale Score). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_overview and stock_overview, which likely focus on individual asset classes.
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 a broad cross-asset overview, making it suitable when users need a general market snapshot rather than a specific asset class. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear contextual usage.
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.