get_flowsKraken large-print buy/sell summary (single venue, not on-chain) joined with WaveTrend 4h state. Paid: $0.02 USDC on Base, paid in-band via x402 MCP (@x402/mcp; _meta "x402/payment"). Also at GET https://micro-saas-agent.onrender.com/api/flows/{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?
No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It does usefully disclose a paid call ($0.02 USDC on Base, x402 in-band payment) and the data provenance (Kraken, single venue, not on-chain), but says nothing about failure behavior, payment refunds, rate limits, or what the response contains.
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 dense sentences plus a URL, with the core data description front-loaded ahead of the payment and endpoint details. No filler, though the pricing/endpoint sentence is packed tightly.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight. It adequately conveys what data the tool returns and that it costs money, but omits return format, error behavior, and clear differentiation from the dot-related sibling.
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 50% and the schema already documents the optional 'pass' param and enumerates 'symbol'. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the symbol as a path parameter via the REST URL; it does not explain the pass token's semantics further.
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 states a specific data product: a Kraken large-print buy/sell summary joined with WaveTrend 4h state, with a clear scope note ('single venue, not on-chain'). It does not explicitly route against siblings, though none of the listed siblings appear to overlap on this exact dataset.
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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives like get_band_dots, get_full_signal, or get_coin, despite overlap implied by the 'dot state' in the title. Payment mechanics are described, but no usage context or prerequisites for choosing this tool.
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.