Upcoming crypto events — token unlocks, protocol upgrades, governance votes, launches. $0.03 USDC. Payment is consumed on execution, including timeouts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look-ahead window in days (7, 14, 30). Default: 14 | |
| query | No | Free-text event query | |
| symbol | No | Filter by token symbol (e.g., ARB, ETH) | |
| category | No | Event type (unlock, upgrade, governance, launch, conference, earnings) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cost ($0.03 USDC) and billing behavior (consumed on execution including timeouts). Lacking annotations, this is helpful but does not cover other behavioral aspects like side effects, rate limits, or error handling.
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?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and cost. No wasted words; front-loaded with the primary function. Ideal conciseness.
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?
Missing details about return format, pagination, or how to interpret results. With no output schema, description should provide more context about what the agent can expect. Adequate but incomplete.
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 already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage. Description adds no additional nuance beyond listing categories in prose, which overlaps with schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it provides 'upcoming crypto events' and lists specific types (token unlocks, protocol upgrades, governance votes, launches). It distinguishes from sibling tools like alpha_news or alpha_token by focusing on events, but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention situations where another alpha tool would be more appropriate, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts.
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 aspect of crypto alpha research (e.g., brief, calendar, compare, deep, macro, memecoin, narrative, news, onchain, perps_funding, portfolio, prediction, risk, search, sentiment, stats, subscribe, token, trending). Descriptions clearly differentiate purposes, minimizing ambiguity.
All tool names follow a uniform 'alpha_{descriptive_noun}' pattern with snake_case, making naming predictable and easy to navigate.
With 19 tools spanning a broad range of crypto intelligence (market data, sentiment, on-chain, risk, portfolio, news, etc.), the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose—neither too few nor excessive.
The tool set covers most key areas of crypto research (price, sentiment, on-chain, risk, news, calendar, narratives, portfolio, predictions, subscriptions). Minor gaps like a dedicated volume/anomaly tool are absent, but the set is largely comprehensive.