List Zipp's Learn guides — evergreen, in-depth crypto explainers (what/how articles on tokens, DeFi, trading, security, wallets, regulation). Newest-first. Optionally filter by a free-text category (e.g. 'defi', 'security', 'trading'). Each item links to the full guide; call get_guide(slug) for the body + FAQ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en-US | |
| limit | No | ||
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Newest-first' ordering and returns items with links, implying read operation. But it doesn't explicitly declare read-only or disclose pagination/rate limits.
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 four short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and adds filtering and next-step guidance efficiently.
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 output schema exists (return values documented elsewhere), the description adequately covers purpose, filtering, ordering, and follow-up action. Missing only pagination details and lang parameter explanation.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains category is a free-text filter and mentions listing (implying limit). However, lang parameter is not explained, and limit is only implicit.
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 lists 'Zipp's Learn guides' — specific resource and action. It details the type of content and ordering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_guide by referencing it for detail retrieval.
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?
It guides when to use (listing guides) and suggests calling get_guide for body. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool over search or get_breaking.
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.
