Breaking news only — last 24 hours, importance score ≥ 75. Lower volume than get_latest but every item is market-moving. Use for 'what's the most important crypto news right now?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en-US | |
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the time window (last 24 hours), importance threshold (≥ 75), and volume comparison to get_latest. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any rate limits, though these are implied by context.
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, highly concise, and front-loads the most important information (breaking news criteria and usage).
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 the tool has output schema and simple parameters with defaults, the description covers the essential filtering criteria and usage context. It is complete for this tool.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (lang and limit). The agent must infer their meaning from defaults and names, which is insufficient.
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 explicitly states 'Breaking news only — last 24 hours, importance score ≥ 75', clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_latest by noting lower volume and market-moving content.
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 provides a specific use case: 'Use for "what's the most important crypto news right now?"'. It also contrasts with get_latest, guiding when to choose this over alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct content type or operation (e.g., breaking news vs. latest news, digests vs. guides, token snapshots vs. rankings). Descriptions clearly differentiate purposes, so an agent can easily select the correct tool.
All tools use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, primarily 'get_*'. The exceptions are 'list_categories' and 'search', which are still clear but break the 'get_' prefix consistency.
With 13 tools, the server covers a broad but focused set of crypto news, education, and market data operations. The number feels appropriate for the domain—not too few to be incomplete, not too many to be overwhelming.
The tool surface provides comprehensive read-only access to news (latest, breaking, featured), editor digests, learn guides, token snapshots, rankings, trending tokens, and search. There are no obvious missing operations for consuming crypto content.
