PREMIUM: Analyzes a multi-coin portfolio for fundamental strength, returning a weighted TVR Score and metric profile. Requires micropayment via MPP. Data from True Value Rankings (truevaluerankings.com).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | No | ||
| portfolio | Yes | Portfolio coins with allocation percentages (should sum to 100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is premium, requires a micropayment via MPP, and sources data from True Value Rankings. These are notable non-obvious aspects. It does not disclose rate limits or error handling, but the key behavioral constraints are effectively communicated.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core action and returns, then adds payment and data source context. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.
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?
Given no output schema and a nested portfolio parameter, the description is somewhat terse. It mentions return values generically ('weighted TVR Score and metric profile') but does not explain what 'metric profile' includes, how _meta affects behavior, or how invalid allocations are handled. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps 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 coverage is 50% (portfolio is described, _meta is not). The description does not explain any parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only refers to 'multi-coin portfolio' without detailing allocation requirements or the _meta parameter. The schema already says allocations should sum to 100, so the description adds minimal value.
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 analyzes a multi-coin portfolio for fundamental strength and returns a weighted TVR Score and metric profile. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tvr_score (single coin) and compare_coins.
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 clearly implies the tool is for multi-coin portfolio analysis, contrasting with single-coin or comparison tools. It also mentions 'PREMIUM' and 'Requires micropayment via MPP', setting expectations for cost. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it is not a full 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.
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.