Full detail of a single post — title, summary, full body, all categories, hashtags, source attribution. Accepts either a slug (from a previous tool call) or a numeric id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en-US | |
| slug_or_id | Yes |
| 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 the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly (retrieves details) and lists return fields, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. Some behavioral context is provided, but gaps exist.
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: first lists returned fields, second explains input. No redundant information. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and input constraints. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return format further. It is adequately complete for a simple retrieval tool, though missing error case mentions.
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%. The description explains the 'slug_or_id' parameter, but the 'lang' parameter (with a default) is not described. Given low coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves one parameter unexplained.
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 that the tool retrieves the full detail of a single post, listing specific fields (title, summary, full body, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings that likely return lists or summaries.
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 explains that the tool accepts either a slug or numeric id, implying it should be used when you have an identifier for a specific post. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search for multiple posts.
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.
