Full detail of a single Editor Digest — title, standfirst, full HTML body, FAQ, sentiment, and tickers. Pass the editor slug and a digest date (YYYY-MM-DD) or slug; omit the date to get that editor's latest published digest. Use get_digests to discover editors + dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en-US | |
| editor_slug | Yes | ||
| date_or_slug | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses default behavior (omit date for latest) and required date format (YYYY-MM-DD). No annotations exist, so description carries burden; lacks details on errors or permissions, but adequate for read operation.
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, no wasted words, purpose stated first, then usage details.
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?
Lists returned fields (title, standfirst, etc.) and references sibling tool. Could mention error handling, but for a detail retrieval tool this is sufficient.
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?
Adds meaning beyond schema: explains date format and optional behavior of 'date_or_slug', and implies purpose of 'editor_slug'. Does not elaborate on 'lang', but schema coverage is 0% so description compensates well.
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?
Clear verb ('get') and resource ('Digest'), lists specific fields returned, and distinguishes from sibling 'get_digests'.
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 states when to use (get a single digest), how to pass parameters (editor slug, optional date/slug), and when to use alternative 'get_digests'.
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.
