longwatch

Watch a crypto price threshold

watch_crypto_price

Monitor a crypto price between agent runs and alert once when it crosses a threshold, with hysteresis before re-arming. Includes 7 days of polling. Costs $0.005 USDC per call via x402 (Base) — no API key, no account. Calling without payment returns 402 with the payment requirements. Free alternative: GET https://longwatch.dev/demo for a free NVDA Form 4 sample, or POST https://longwatch.dev/try for a 24h watch — no wallet needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`coin`	Yes	CoinGecko id, e.g. bitcoin
`above`	No
`below`	No
`webhook`	No	optional HTTPS endpoint for signed push alerts; polling still works
`move_pct_24h`	No
`idempotency_key`	No	unique retry key; the same key and input return the original watch

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: per-call cost in USDC via x402, no API key/account requirement, 402 behavior without payment, alert-once semantics, hysteresis before re-arming, 7-day polling, and optional signed webhook push. This is unusually complete 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Core behavior and cost are front-loaded in tight phrasing. The last sentence about the free NVDA Form 4 sample and trial URLs adds useful cost-avoidance guidance but is slightly noisy and tangential to crypto-price watching.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The operational context is strong: pricing, payment flow, duration, and webhook option are all covered. However, with no output schema, no return/alert-delivery detail, and unresolved semantics for three of six parameters, an agent cannot fully infer the correct complete invocation from this description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description does not make up the gap: above, below, and move_pct_24h are left bare, and move_pct_24h in particular is ambiguous. The generic 'threshold/hysteresis' wording does not map to these parameters or explain boundary behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action and resource: it monitors a crypto price across agent runs and alerts once on threshold crossing, with hysteresis and 7-day polling. This clearly differentiates it from one-shot check tools like check_crypto_price by emphasizing persistence between runs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: use when you need a priced, persistent crypto-price watch with 7 days of polling and optional webhooks. It also points to free alternatives, including a 24h watch without a wallet, but it does not explicitly say when not to use the tool versus sibling watch/check tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All longwatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated into immediate check_* and persistent watch_* counterparts across distinct source types, plus lifecycle tools for creating, polling, and deleting watches. The generic check_now and create_watch overlap somewhat with the specialized check_*/watch_* tools, but the descriptions clarify session vs. persistent usage.

Naming Consistency4/5

The check_<source>/watch_<source> pairing is consistent across all six monitored source types, and lifecycle tools use predictable verb-based names like create_watch, delete_watch, poll_alerts, and try_watch. Minor deviations like check_now and create_watch rather than watch_create break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention remains legible.

Tool Count4/5

Eighteen tools is on the heavier side, but the count is justified by six source types each having both a check and watch mode, plus lifecycle operations. The generic check_now and create_watch add redundancy with the specialized tools, making the set slightly larger than strictly necessary.

Completeness3/5

The server covers immediate checks, persistent watches, trial watches, polling, and deletion, so the main monitoring workflow is present. However, there is no update_watch, list_watches, or get_watch status tool, so agents cannot modify or enumerate existing watches and must delete/recreate instead.

Resources

Need Help?