The full lookup table behind every Sardine number for one series.
Each row is a (distance-from-strike, time-left) bucket: distance in
volatility units, seconds left, the share that settled YES, its 95%
interval, and the number of independent windows counted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | BTC | |
| window_minutes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about the row contents but does not disclose freshness, caching, data source behavior, or any operational constraints beyond what annotations provide.
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 and front-loads the core purpose before describing row structure. It is efficient, though some row details overlap with the output schema.
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 the row description is not strictly necessary, but it does help. However, the definition leaves gaps around parameter meaning and when to use this tool rather than a sibling, making it only minimally complete for the agent's selection and invocation needs.
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 0%, so the description needs to explain asset and window_minutes. It does not mention either parameter or their allowed values, and 'one series' is too vague to compensate for the undocumented enum parameters.
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 this returns a full lookup table for one series and explains the row structure. It is specific about the resource and data shape, though it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_settlement_rate or get_live_board.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explicit exclusions. 'For one series' is the only scope hint, but it does not tell the agent which sibling to choose.
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.