Side-by-side token comparison across price action, volume, sentiment, and fundamentals. $0.05 USDC. Payment is consumed on execution, including timeouts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokens | No | Comma-separated token symbols (2-5), e.g. SOL,ETH | |
| metrics | No | Focus areas: price,volume,sentiment,holders,liquidity. Default: all | |
| addresses | No | Comma-separated contract addresses (alternative to tokens) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Discloses cost and timeout behavior, which helps with financial expectations. But does not cover data sources, latency, error handling, or output format. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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, zero wasted words. First sentence states purpose clearly. Second sentence adds critical cost/timeout info. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given no output schema and 3 parameters, description is incomplete. Does not explain return format, pagination, or sorting. For a comparison tool, more detail on output structure would help. However, cost and timeout are covered. Middle ground.
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 schema already describes parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning by listing example focus areas (price, volume, sentiment, fundamentals). No additional validation or usage details beyond 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 uses specific verb 'compare' and identifies resources ('tokens') and dimensions ('price action, volume, sentiment, fundamentals'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like alpha_token (single token) and alpha_stats (statistics) by emphasizing side-by-side comparison.
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?
Mentions cost ($0.05 USDC) and payment consumed on execution including timeouts, which is useful. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings or when not to use. The context of 'comparison' implies usage, but lacks direct alternatives or exclusions.
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.