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: output includes type/severity, provenance attestation, payment model (free allowance, $0.02 per query, re-call with payment_tx, auth bypass). 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?

Description is reasonably concise, front-loading the purpose and then covering anomalies and payment. Could be slightly tighter but remains focused and well-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 and parameters are fully described, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, output features, payment details, and re-call procedure. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra detail beyond the schema, except mentioning that payment_tx is used in re-calls, which aligns with 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 the tool scans for market anomalies (volume spikes, price moves, divergence) and returns ranked results. This distinguishes it well from siblings like market_overview or price.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (scan for anomalies) and includes payment instructions with re-call flow after a 402. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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 fully covers behavior: returns structured JSON (no prose), defaults to today, payment flow, and optional auth bypass. No behavioral gaps.

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?

5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output type, every sentence adds value. Efficient and well-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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameters, payment, and siblings. Output schema exists so return values are documented separately. No missing context for 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%, meeting baseline. The description adds useful context for each parameter: date default, agent_id's free-tier scoping, payment_tx usage in retry.

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?

Clearly states 'Get the top 5 signals from today's brief as structured JSON', specifying the verb, resource, and distinguishing it from the full daily_brief sibling.

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 tells when to use (as a cheap sample) and how to handle payment with 402 retry and authorization bypass, including specifics.

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 fully covers behavioral traits: it's a read operation that is paid, has an expiry mechanism, provides provenance attestation, and includes payment workflow. No contradictions exist.

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 with two front-loaded paragraphs: first covering purpose and contents, second covering payment details. Every sentence adds value without 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 the complexity (paid tool, multiple parameters, output schema exists), the description thoroughly covers the brief contents, payment workflow, parameter usage, and authentication. No gaps are apparent.

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 description adds meaning beyond parameter definitions by explaining the payment flow for payment_tx and stripe_token, the date's role in expiry, and the free-tier counter scoping via agent_id.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly states it returns a curated daily crypto brief covering multiple components (gainers/losers, Fear & Greed, market cap, DeFi movers, anomalies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects (e.g., anomaly_scan, defi_overview).

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 when to use the tool (for daily brief) and provides detailed payment instructions (default date, expiry, payment on 402, bearer key bypass). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for specific data needs, though the context is implied.

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 the transparency burden. It discloses the payment model ('PAID: $0.01 USDC per query after a daily free allowance'), the 402 payment flow, and the Authorization bypass. This provides substantial behavioral context beyond a typical read 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?

Two concise paragraphs: first covers functionality, second covers payment details. Front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 system, conditional behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core logic and error handling. It could mention that it's a read-only operation, but the payment disclosure makes the intent clear.

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 is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how the protocol parameter alters the response (single vs. aggregate data) and clarifies the payment_tx parameter's role in retrying after a 402. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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.' It specifies that providing a protocol name returns that protocol's TVL and changes, while omitting it returns top protocols and total TVL. This distinct behavior differentiates it from sibling tools like anomaly_scan or price.

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 the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. Since sibling tools cover different domains, the usage context is implicit. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is 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?

With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral info. It accurately describes the data returned but fails to disclose potential traits like data freshness, caching, or error handling. The transparency is adequate for a simple read-only tool but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the key purpose and list the returned components. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 and zero parameters, the description sufficiently covers all necessary context. It explains what the tool returns without needing to detail return formats (handled by schema). The tool is simple and well-described.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, zero parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter info since none exist, and it correctly omits extraneous details.

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's function: getting a snapshot of the crypto market. It specifies exactly what is returned (top 20 coins, total market cap, BTC dominance, Fear & Greed index), making it distinct from siblings like defi_overview or daily_brief.

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 sizing up sentiment in one call and mentions it's FREE, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes the tool is 'FREE', but does not explain idempotency, side effects, or what the output contains. The presence of an output schema is not described, leaving behavior unclear.

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 compact but slightly run-on, combining protocol details, attestation explanation, and sibling references in two sentences. It conveys information without excessive length, but could be more front-loaded about the core action.

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 parameters and an output schema, the description should fully explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'details' and 'how to attest', but does not specify the actual content or structure of the output, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as per guidelines.

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 mentions 'FoundryNet Data Network + MINT Protocol details' suggesting an informational tool, but it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'get', 'retrieve') to indicate the action. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on protocol details and attestation, but the purpose is somewhat vague.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. While it mentions 'sibling data servers', it does not explain when an agent should choose mint_info over other tools like market_overview or anomaly_scan.

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 the full burden. It mentions the tool is 'FREE' but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the coin is not found). This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No redundant phrases or clutter.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is complete. It lists all return values, mentions cost (FREE), and provides input format guidance. No gaps are apparent.

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% (parameter documented). The description adds value by providing examples ('bitcoin', 'BTC') and clarifying that it accepts both CoinGecko ids and ticker symbols, which is more helpful than the bare schema description.

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's purpose: 'Get the latest USD price for a cryptocurrency.' It lists specific outputs (price, 24h change, volume, market cap) and distinguishes from siblings like 'price_history' which likely provides historical 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 clear guidance on input format (CoinGecko id or ticker symbol) and implies it's the basic price tool ('FREE — the gateway tool'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the purpose is obvious enough given sibling names.

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 fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a paid tool with a daily free allowance, requires payment_tx on 402, and offers a bearer key bypass. It also explains the retry pattern and error handling, leaving no ambiguity.

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 with two focused sections: purpose and payment details. It front-loads the core functionality, though the payment block is somewhat dense. No superfluous content.

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 complexity (payment, retry, 4 parameters), the description covers all necessary contextual aspects. It mentions use cases, output is not explained due to output schema presence. Lacks comparison to siblings but still robust.

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 already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states 'Get the daily price/volume history for a cryptocurrency over the last N days', specifying verb, resource, and scope. It also lists use cases (backtesting, charting, trend analysis) and distinguishes from sibling 'price' 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?

The description provides explicit payment instructions and retry logic for 402 errors, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools. However, the paid model and free allowance are clearly explained, aiding appropriate invocation.

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 fully bears the burden. It discloses the scoring mechanism, risk factors considered, and the paid model (free daily allowance, Solana memo payment, re-call with payment_tx). It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and scoring factors. The second paragraph covers payment. While slightly dense, every sentence serves a purpose; no filler.

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?

Describes inputs, process, scoring logic, output structure (risk_level and recommendation), and payment flow. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return fields. Missing explicit mention of non-destructiveness, but overall adequate.

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%, but the description adds value beyond schema: clarifies coin can be id or symbol, agent_id scopes free counter, and payment_tx is Solana signature for re-call. This enriches agent understanding beyond raw 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 explicitly states the tool is a DeFi Risk Scanner that scores tokens 0-100 for downside risk, combining live price with market context. It lists specific risk flags (micro/small-cap, thin liquidity, extreme volatility, extreme-fear market regime) and output (risk_level, recommendation), clearly differentiating from siblings like price or anomaly_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?

Provides clear usage context: scanning token risk, with payment details for exceeding free daily allowance. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings, the guidance on free tier and payment process is valuable for correct invocation.

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 discloses behavioral traits: it is volume-derived (not raw on-chain), costs $0.01 per query after free allowance, requires payment via Solana memo on 402, and can use an Authorization header to bypass payment. This is highly 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 with two short paragraphs. Every sentence adds value: first explains what the tool does and its derivation method, second covers payment and authorization. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 flow, derivation method, 4 optional params, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the proxy nature, how to handle payment, and the Authorization header. Return values are not needed due to output schema.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described in schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the payment flow context is useful for overall usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents 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?

Description clearly states the tool surfaces notable crypto flows based on volume and turnover as a proxy for whale activity. It specifies it is volume-derived, not raw on-chain, which distinguishes it from potential sibling tools like market_overview or price. The payment and usage flow are also clearly outlined.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (surfacing whale activity proxies) and explains the volume-derived nature, suggesting when not to use (if raw on-chain data is needed). The payment handling and free allowance are described, but explicit alternatives for raw on-chain data are not mentioned.

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