Crypto Market Intelligence MCP

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the result includes a MINT provenance attestation, payment details (free allowance, cost, 402 handling, Bearer key bypass). This fully informs the agent of side effects and prerequisites.

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?

The description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with purpose and return value, then payment details. Every sentence adds value, though the payment section could be slightly more structured.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers return intent (ranked anomalies with type and severity) and usage context (payment, authentication). No gaps for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 baseline 3. The description adds context beyond the schema, particularly for payment_tx (re-call after 402) and agent_id (free-tier counter), improving understanding of parameter usage.

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 scans for market anomalies including specific types (volume spikes, price moves, divergence from moving averages), and returns ranked anomalies with type and severity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like price or token_risk_scan.

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?

The description provides clear context for usage, including payment model and error handling (402), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the paywall ($0.50 USDC), default date behavior (today UTC), payment flow on 402 (with memo and payment_tx parameter), and optional auth key. This is comprehensive for a paid tool.

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?

The description is well-structured with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by cost, default behavior, and error handling. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is slightly long but highly 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 the tool's complexity (payment, error handling, authentication, output format), the description covers all aspects needed for correct selection and invocation. The mention of output schema (provided) fills in return value details, making it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds value by explaining the purpose of agent_id (free-tier counter scoping) and the payment_tx flow (Solana signature on 402), which is crucial context beyond the schema. A minor deduction because the schema already does significant work.

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 it retrieves the top 5 signals from today's brief as structured JSON, distinguishing it from the sibling daily_brief by being a cheaper sample. The verb 'get' and resource 'top 5 signals from today's brief' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (as a preview before buying the full brief) and how to handle payments, including error handling for 402 responses and optional Authorization header for bypass. It directly contrasts with the daily_brief alternative.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is paid ($15 USDC), that briefs expire at midnight UTC, and that MINT provenance attestation is included. It also explains authentication alternatives (fnet_ Bearer key). This gives the agent comprehensive behavioral insight.

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?

The description is informative and well-structured, starting with the tool's purpose followed by payment and usage details. Each sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more compact by merging some payment details. Still, it remains clear and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no required fields, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: what the brief contains, payment mechanism, expiration, and authentication. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'anomaly_scan' but provides enough detail for the agent to understand its unique value.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as how payment_tx is used after a 402, that date defaults to today UTC, and that agent_id scopes a free-tier counter. This enhances understanding without redundancy.

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 returns a curated daily crypto brief with specific contents (top gainers/losers, Fear & Greed, market cap, BTC dominance, DeFi TVL movers, flagged anomalies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'anomaly_scan' or 'market_overview' by being a comprehensive daily package.

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?

The description explains default behavior (today UTC), expiration (midnight UTC), and payment flow (402 handling, payment_tx parameter, fnet_ Bearer bypass). It does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the read-only nature, cost model, error handling procedure, and fee bypass option. There are no contradictions and all behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

The description is concise (two paragraphs), front-loads the core functionality, and adds payment details without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (two modes, payment handling), the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how to use it, payment model, error recovery, and authentication options. Output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.

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 description coverage is 100% and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how parameters affect behavior (protocol optional for two modes) and the special payment_tx parameter for retries. The agent gets full context on parameter usage.

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 'Get DeFi Total Value Locked (TVL) intelligence from DeFiLlama' and explains two distinct modes: with a protocol name returns that protocol's TVL and changes, without returns top protocols grouped by category plus total TVL. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like market_overview or price which focus on different data.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool for TVL data, details payment requirements ($0.01 USDC after free allowance), handling of 402 errors (pay and re-call with payment_tx), and an alternative authorization method (Bearer key). It does not compare to siblings but the behavior is clearly scoped.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the call is free and returns a specific set of data, indicating a read-only operation. No side effects or rate limits disclosed, but for a zero-param snapshot, the transparency is adequate.

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?

One sentence with clear structure: purpose first ('Get a snapshot'), then lists contents. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 the simple nature (no params, free, output schema exists), the description fully explains what the tool returns and its purpose. No additional context needed.

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?

No parameters exist, so the schema provides no parameter info. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by explaining the outputs, but parameter semantics is not applicable.

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 'Get a snapshot of the crypto market' and enumerates specific outputs (top 20 coins, total market cap, BTC dominance, Fear & Greed index). Distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual prices or specific scans.

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?

Does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'price' or 'anomaly_scan'. The description implies it's for a broad market sentiment snapshot, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'FREE' but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what the tool modifies. The lack of such information limits the agent's ability to understand the tool's impact.

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?

The description is short but not optimally structured; the first sentence is fragmented and the second is a question-like phrase. It conveys key information but could be more clearly organized.

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 that an output schema exists, the description should elaborate on what the tool returns. It only mentions 'details' and 'how to attest', which is insufficient for understanding the output. The tool is relatively simple with no parameters, so completeness could be improved with a brief statement on the nature of the returned data.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's purpose, which is sufficient given the absence of 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 indicates it provides details about FoundryNet Data Network and MINT Protocol, and explains how to attest market reads on-chain. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_overview or anomaly_scan, which focus on specific data rather than the network/protocol itself. However, it is somewhat vague on what exact details are returned.

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?

The description implies usage for obtaining network/protocol details and for understanding on-chain attestation, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, or when not to use it. The mention of 'sibling data servers' hints at broader context but lacks clear direction.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output fields (price, 24h change, volume, market cap) and input flexibility (id or symbol). It does not mention rate limits, errors, or edge cases, but does convey read-only behavior and 'FREE' usage. Adequate for a simple price tool.

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?

Three sentences with clear front-loading of the main action. The second sentence ('FREE — the gateway tool every trading agent needs') adds some promotional fluff but still conveys usefulness. No redundant information, but could be slightly tighter.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but true), the description appropriately lists the return fields. The single parameter is fully described in the schema. It lacks notes on error handling or when to use alternatives, but for a simple price look-up, it covers the core needs.

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% and the schema description already explains the coin parameter accepts either a CoinGecko id or symbol with examples. The tool description repeats this information without adding new meaning, so it meets baseline but does not exceed.

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 'Get the latest USD price for a cryptocurrency.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like price_history (historical data) and market_overview (broader market info) by being the gateway tool for current price, and specifies it returns price, 24h change, volume, and market cap.

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?

Description explicitly calls itself 'the gateway tool every trading agent needs,' implying it's the first stop for price queries. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context of siblings like price_history provides implicit guidance. A clearer exclusion would improve it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the paid model ($0.01 per query after free allowance), the 402 error handling with payment_tx retry, and the optional Authorization header for bypass. These are critical behavioral traits not inferred from the schema. However, rate limits or other constraints are omitted, and it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (though implied).

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?

The description is concise (two sentences with a third for payment detail) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, then payment mechanics. It is well-structured but slightly dense, earning a 4 rather than 5 due to minor lack of whitespace separation.

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 the tool's complexity (payment model, free tier, retry logic), the description covers essential behavioral context. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. The description mentions use cases (backtesting, charting, trend analysis). It could mention error responses beyond 402 or rate limits, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: coin accepts both CoinGecko IDs and symbols, days is a lookback window with default 30, agent_id scopes the free-tier counter, and payment_tx is for retry after 402. This provides operational understanding beyond parameter names and types.

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 retrieves daily price/volume history for a cryptocurrency over a specified number of days, with explicit use cases (backtesting, charting, trend analysis). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('price/volume history'), and distinguishes well from siblings like 'price' (current price) and 'defi_overview' (different data).

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?

The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies historical data, there is no mention of when to prefer it over siblings like 'market_overview' or 'whale_alerts'. No instructions on prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes the paywall ($0.02 USDC per scan, free allowance, payment flow with Solana memo and re-call), and mentions authorization bypass with 'Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key'. It also lists behavioral flags (micro/small-cap risk, etc.). However, it doesn't mention rate limits or exact response format.

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?

The description is relatively concise with two paragraphs. It front-loads the main purpose and risk flags, then provides payment details. Every sentence adds value, though the payment flow could be more streamlined.

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 3 parameters, an output schema (from context), and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input semantics, payment, and risk flags. It returns a risk_level and plain-English recommendation, which is likely enough detail for the agent. No major gaps.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning: 'coin' is a CoinGecko id or symbol, 'agent_id' is a stable ID for free-tier counter, 'payment_tx' is the Solana signature for re-calling after a 402. This provides context beyond the schema.

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 it's a DeFi Risk Scanner that scores tokens 0-100 for downside risk, combining live price with broader market read. It lists specific risk flags (micro/small-cap, thin liquidity, extreme volatility, extreme-fear market regime) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'price' and 'market_overview' which are more generic.

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?

The description explains what risks it flags and mentions payment flow, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose 'anomaly_scan' instead). It does not state when not to use it or provide prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations, but description fully discloses it is volume-derived, payment requirements, 402 error recovery, and optional Authorization. No contradictions.

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 concise paragraphs; front-loaded with purpose. Slight mix of payment details and methodology, but no redundancy.

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 output schema exists, description covers core functionality, payment, and filtering. No missing critical information for a complex tool.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The main description adds useful context on payment flow and agent_id scoping, providing additional value beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb 'Surface' and resource 'notable crypto flows', distinct from siblings like price or anomaly_scan. Explicitly states it identifies coins with high volume/turnover as proxy for whale activity.

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?

Explicitly notes volume-derived nature vs. raw on-chain data, payment model with free allowance and $0.01 per query, 402 handling, and Authorization bypass. Provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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