Compares 2 to 5 cryptocurrencies on TVR Score, valuation, and fair value gap. Identifies the largest scoring difference. For a full metric-by-metric comparison, use get_comparison_report. Data from True Value Rankings (truevaluerankings.com).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coins | Yes | Array of 2-5 cryptocurrency ticker symbols to compare (e.g., ["BTC", "ETH", "SOL"]) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it identifies the largest scoring difference and cites the data source, adding behavioral context beyond the tool name. It could mention output format or side effects, but for a read-only compare, this is solid.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by the alternative tool and data source. Every word earns its place; 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 one-parameter tool, this description covers the what, scope, and alternative. It does not specify return format, but it does state a key output behavior (largest scoring difference). Given no output schema, this is sufficient for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% as the coins parameter is fully described in the schema. The description does not add new syntax or constraints for the parameter; it only references the metrics compared, which is tool behavior rather than parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource+scope: Compares 2-5 cryptocurrencies on three named metrics (TVR Score, valuation, fair value gap). Explicitly distinguishes from get_comparison_report by directing to it for full metric-by-metric comparison, making its unique role clear.
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?
Explicitly names alternative tool (get_comparison_report) for full comparison, implying this tool is meant for concise comparisons. This is clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Most tools target distinct functions (listing, scoring, valuation, comparison, rankings, methodology, history). However, get_tvr_estimated_value and get_tvr_score overlap significantly, as get_tvr_score already includes the valuation data. Compare_coins and get_comparison_report are similar but differentiated by depth.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, primarily using 'get_' with a descriptive noun. This makes the tool names predictable and easy to navigate.
11 tools is well-scoped for a cryptocurrency analysis service, covering the full range of querying, comparison, and premium features without excess.
The tool set covers the major use cases: discovering coins, obtaining scores and valuations, comparing, ranking, historical tracking, portfolio analysis, and understanding methodology. No significant gaps are apparent.