Stateful 5-minute delta feed for autonomous trading bots: computes real-time shifts in DEX buy/se.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools target completely different concerns: account/wallet ledger inspection versus data-feed polling. Descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other with WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE guidance, leaving no room for misselection.
Both names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_agent_wallet_status, poll_alpha_delta_stream). Naming is predictable and readable across the entire surface.
Two tools is very thin for a server advertising DeFi, DEX, and Polymarket alpha coverage. A single data-polling tool plus a status checker undersells the stated scope considerably.
Descriptions repeatedly reference 'the other tools on this server' for execution, marketplace actions, and Stripe/USDC payment submission, but no such tools exist, creating dead ends. The paid flow (top-up, tx submission) cannot be completed with the exposed surface.
Inspect an agent's account ledger: remaining free trial calls (out of 5), prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, and total LLM tokens saved. WHEN TO USE: Call before a batch of paid tool executions or after completing a Stripe or USDC top-up to confirm your balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use to process web content, execute marketplace tools, or submit payments; use the other tools on this server for execution. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Omit agent_id to inspect the default trial account derived from your client IP, or pass your explicit agent_id or agd_pass_ session key to check a specific funded wallet. Free and read-only: never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call. Example: get_agent_wallet_status(agent_id='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional Agent ID or agd_pass_ session key to inspect. Omit to check the default wallet derived from your client IP. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call, and the default wallet is derived from the caller's client IP. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, but the cost/free-trial guarantee is meaningful behavioral disclosure.
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?
Front-loaded with the ledger contents, then structured WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS / Example. The labeled sections make it scannable, though the repetition of the read-only guarantee and the worked example add a little bulk.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still names the key fields. With a single optional parameter, no nested objects, and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by naming the agd_pass_ session-key form and framing the two modes as an interaction (omit for IP-derived trial account vs. pass explicit agent_id/session key for a funded wallet), which aids selection even though the schema states the omit behavior.
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?
States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (agent's account ledger) and enumerates exactly what is returned: trial calls out of 5, prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, tokens saved. This clearly separates it from the sibling web-content tools (distill_webpage, extract_structured_data, recon_webpage_skeleton), which operate on webpages rather than wallet state.
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?
Explicit WHEN TO USE (before paid tool batches, after a Stripe or USDC top-up) and WHEN NOT TO USE (not for processing web content, executing marketplace tools, or submitting payments). The exclusion clause routes the agent back to the other server tools for execution, so the alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Stateful 5-minute delta feed for autonomous trading bots: computes real-time shifts in DEX buy/sell ratio, DeFiLlama APY spreads, and Polymarket odds. WHEN TO USE: Call poll_alpha_delta_stream when your task requires deterministic alpha-stream analysis for target; use get_agent_wallet_status to check your remaining free trial quota or prepaid balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for unrelated domains or binary media. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Pass the target target as a non-empty string; omit agent_id and tx_hash during your 5 free trial calls, or supply agent_id (agd_pass_...) / tx_hash for paid execution. Read-only and idempotent; results are cached for 1 hour (<5ms cache hit). $0.01 per call. Pricing: the first 5 calls per agent_id are free and failed calls are never charged. After 5 calls, the tool returns a payment-required quote (not a fatal error) with a $2 Stripe top-up link and Base/Solana USDC addresses; complete payment, then retry with your agd_pass_ key in agent_id or pass tx_hash. Example: poll_alpha_delta_stream(target='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Primary token symbol or asset (e.g. AERO, ETH, SOL) to track stateful 5-minute orderflow and yield deltas. | |
| tx_hash | No | Optional on-chain Base Mainnet (0x...) or Solana SPL USDC transaction hash. Omit unless settling an individual call directly on-chain instead of using an agd_pass_ key in agent_id. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent identifier or prepaid agd_pass_ session key. Omit during your 5 free trial calls to use an ID automatically derived from your client IP, or pass your agd_pass_ key after topping up. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, but the description goes well beyond them: 1-hour result caching with <5ms hits, $0.01/call pricing, first 5 calls free, failed calls never charged, and the crucial non-fatal payment-required quote behavior with a retry path. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot express.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, then when-to-use, then parameter interactions and pricing, and it includes a concrete example call. It is dense and mostly earns its length, though the pricing details are restated ('$0.01 per call' followed by a fuller 'Pricing:' block), which is mild redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: cost, trial limits, caching, and the exact recovery flow after a payment-required response. Complete for a paid, stateful polling 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the cross-parameter interaction the schema only implies per-field: omit both agent_id and tx_hash during the 5 free trial calls, then supply either an agd_pass_ key or a tx_hash for paid execution. It adds real routing value, though some of it overlaps the per-parameter schema text.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (stateful 5-minute delta feed computing DEX buy/sell ratio, DeFiLlama APY spreads, Polymarket odds) rather than restating the name. It also names the sibling get_agent_wallet_status and what that sibling is for, so an agent can route without opening either schema.
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?
Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, including the exact trigger condition ('task requires deterministic alpha-stream analysis for target'), the alternative tool for quota checks, and the exclusion ('unrelated domains or binary media'). Nothing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_agent_wallet_statuspoll_alpha_delta_streamStateful 5-minute delta feed for autonomous trading bots: computes real-time shifts in DEX buy/sel
Tracks real-time 1h/24h DEX buy/sell orderflow ratios, whale accumulation signals, and liquidity v
Tracks real-time 1h/24h DEX buy/sell orderflow ratios, whale accumulation signals, and liquidity.
Crypto perps for AI agents: funding, OI, liquidations, order book, CVD, volume profile, footprint.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
