FREE — list every News Gurus Intel tool with its price (USDC on Base via x402), input schema and example output. Call this first to decide what to buy. No payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, returns listing of tools with prices (USDC on Base via x402), schemas, and example output. It does not mention any destructive or rate-limiting behaviors, but as a read-only catalog, this is sufficient.
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 with no extraneous words. The key term 'FREE' is front-loaded, and each sentence adds unique value: what the tool lists, and why to call it first.
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?
The description fully covers what the tool does, its output contents (tools, prices, schemas, example output), and its purpose (decision tool). Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, this is complete.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to explain 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 the tool lists every News Gurus Intel tool with price, input schema, and example output. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are specific data tools, making it clear this is a catalog tool.
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?
It explicitly says 'Call this first to decide what to buy,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also mentions no payment required, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.
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.
Every tool targets a unique resource or data feed, from agent status and macro snapshots to Polymarket whale analytics and MLB props. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools, even those within the same domain (e.g., the multiple Polymarket tools are clearly distinguished by their focus on landscape, stats, new wallets, leaders, and flagged whales).
The naming follows a consistent get_<resource> pattern for all 35 data retrieval tools, with only verify_memecoin deviating but still using a clear verb-noun structure. The pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy for an agent to infer the purpose of any tool.
With 36 tools, this significantly exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the server covers a broad range of market intelligence domains, the sheer number of tools makes navigation and selection challenging for an agent, placing it in the 'too many' category.
The API provides comprehensive coverage across signals, sentiment, on-chain data, institutional activity, sports, and macro, with both broad aggregate tools and per-symbol/asset specifics. Minor gaps exist, such as a lack of direct news headlines or a fear-greed index, but these are not critical dead ends given the stated purpose of delivering derived intelligence.