get_coinWaveTrend 4h snapshot for one coin. Paid: $0.005 USDC on Base, paid in-band via x402 MCP (@x402/mcp; _meta "x402/payment"). Also at GET https://micro-saas-agent.onrender.com/api/coin/{symbol}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pass | No | Optional GW8 day pass token (from buy_day_pass / POST /api/pass/day); skips per-call payment | |
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / passAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional GW8 day pass token (from buy_day_pass / POST /api/pass/day); skips per-call payment",
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "type": "string"
+}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 most consequential trait: this call is paid ($0.005 USDC on Base, settled in-band via x402 and the _meta 'x402/payment' field). It also names a free-ish HTTP fallback endpoint and, via the schema, a day-pass bypass. It still omits cache freshness/lag, failure behavior, and what the snapshot contains, so it is not complete.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the payment/access mechanics. The dense parenthetical about x402 is compact given how much commercial detail it conveys.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description is the only source for return content, and it says only 'WaveTrend 4h snapshot' without listing the values returned. It does cover access/payment adequately, but an agent still lacks parameter semantics and output shape for a 2-parameter 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 description coverage is 50% – the 'pass' parameter is documented in the schema but 'symbol' carries only an enum with no per-value meaning, and the description adds nothing about either parameter. With coverage this low the description should compensate, and it does not.
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 indicator (WaveTrend), timeframe (4h), and scope (one coin), which is enough to distinguish it from nothing-else in the list. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_full_signal or get_band_dots, which also appear to be per-coin signal reads.
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?
There is no statement of when to pick this over get_full_signal, get_history, or get_band_dots, nor prerequisites beyond the implicit single-symbol scope. The agent must infer that this is the narrow per-coin WaveTrend read.
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.