agentdata-nl

crypto_verdict

Live crypto trading verdict for a coin (e.g. BTC-EUR), resold from an upstream signal system. Two layers: 'long' (positional ALLOW_LONG/EXIT/HOLD with confidence, summary and primary risk) and 'daytrade' (a 15m LONG/EXIT setup with entry range, stop-loss, take-profit and reward:risk). Pick layer long|daytrade|both. No fresh verdict for the requested layer means 400 and no charge — you only pay for an actual, still-valid verdict. Factual model output, not investment advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coin`	Yes	Coin/product id, e.g. 'BTC-EUR' (see supported coins in the error on an unknown coin)
`layer`	No	Which verdict layer to buy ('regime' is an accepted alias for 'long'); no fresh verdict for it means 400 and no charge	both

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It reveals the resold signal source, the two layers with their respective output types, the behavior when no fresh verdict is available (400 response and no charge), and a disclaimer that it is 'factual model output, not investment advice'. This is comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds supporting details about layers, billing, and disclaimer. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy. It is slightly long but efficient given the complexity of the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, behavioral nuances (billing, error condition), and output structure for both layers (confidence, summary, risk for long; entry, stop-loss, take-profit, reward:risk for daytrade). No gaps are apparent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the 'coin' parameter with an example and mentioning error-based discovery of supported coins. For 'layer', it clarifies that 'regime' is an alias for 'long' and reiterates the no-charge condition, providing meaningful context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides a 'live crypto trading verdict for a coin', specifies two distinct layers ('long' and 'daytrade'), and mentions it is 'resold from an upstream signal system'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like check_crypto_signal and crypto_track_record by emphasizing the verdict structure and source.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool (to get a verdict) and provides important context about billing ('no fresh verdict means 400 and no charge'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare to alternatives, leaving some room for ambiguity in tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agentdata-nl tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and domain: country-specific company checks (check_ch_company, check_fr_company, etc.), insolvency checks, crypto signals, x402 network tools, etc. Descriptions are detailed and make boundaries clear, with no two tools appearing to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow very consistent patterns: 'check_<country>_<entity>' for registers, 'crypto_*' for crypto intelligence, 'x402_*' for x402 network functions, 'screen_*' for screening, and a few free-form names like 'verify_eu_vat' and 'lookup_lei' that still fit the verb_noun style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is high but justified by the broad scope: the server aggregates many country-specific checks, insolvency registers, crypto tools, x402 monitoring, and auxiliary functions (like phone number buying, LEI lookup). Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is not excessive given the coverage. A slight reduction could be possible by merging some country checks, but overall it's reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers major European company registers (CH, UK, FR, NL, NO, PL, CZ, FI), insolvency checks (NL, FR), sanctions screening, VAT validation, crypto market intelligence, and x402 network tools. It acknowledges gaps (e.g., no German check) and provides fallback tools like 'screen_eu_supplier' and 'file_agent_want'. Minor missing pieces (e.g., Italian company check) keep it from a perfect 5.

Resources

Need Help?