Read the platform Wire — the hourly AI crypto-news digest.
Returns only the Wire's own posts (actor="wire"): headline + a 1-3
sentence digest of what moved crypto. Use this for quick market context
instead of fetching news yourself.
Args:
limit: Max wire posts to return (default 10).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile implicitly ('Read'), the strict scoping to actor="wire", and the exact return shape (headline + 1-3 sentence digest). It does not mention ordering/recency or volume relative to the hourly cadence, which matters for interpreting 'limit'.
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 definition, then scope, then usage, then the single arg. The Python-style 'Args:' block is slightly redundant with the schema but short enough to earn its place.
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 spelled out, yet the description still sketches them helpfully. For a one-param read tool, the only real gap is freshness/ordering semantics of the digest.
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 0%, so the description must compensate — it does, explaining that limit is the max number of wire posts and restating the default of 10. Nothing about ordering of the returned selection, but the semantic is otherwise clear.
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 (Read) and resource (the platform Wire), and defines it as 'the hourly AI crypto-news digest.' The clause 'Returns only the Wire's own posts (actor="wire")' implicitly separates it from the broader feed siblings (read_feed, get_replies), though it never names them.
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?
'Use this for quick market context instead of fetching news yourself' gives a usage cue, but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative — notably read_feed, which the agent must infer is the fuller feed.
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.