get_historyRolling 90-day band-dot backtest with forward moves and live hit rates (green dots carry the edge; red near coin-flip). Paid: $0.05 USDC on Base, paid in-band via x402 MCP (@x402/mcp; _meta "x402/payment"). Also at GET https://micro-saas-agent.onrender.com/api/history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pair | No | ||
| pass | No | Optional GW8 day pass token (from buy_day_pass / POST /api/pass/day); skips per-call payment |
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. It usefully discloses the payment model ($0.05 USDC on Base, x402 MCP, _meta 'x402/payment') and the HTTP alternative, which are genuine behavioral facts. However, it never says what the response actually contains structurally, nor any rate limits, so real behavioral gaps remain.
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?
It is a single dense sentence-plus-clause block that front-loads what the tool delivers before the payment logistics. Content is efficiently packed with little waste, though the payment/URL tail makes it slightly busy.
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?
For a 2-param paid fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers payment/auth and the green/red semantics but omits the shape of the returned backtest and any guidance on choosing it over get_band_dots. It is adequate but has clear holes an agent would want filled.
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%: the optional 'pass' token is documented in the schema, but the 'pair' enum has no description in either place. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no syntax, no note on what pairs drive, no relation to the 90-day window), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 concrete verb and resource: a rolling 90-day band-dot backtest with forward moves and live hit rates, plus the meaning of the green/red dots. This lets an agent separate it from get_band_dots (current dots) reasonably well, though the sibling routing is left implicit rather than named.
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 explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance. The description never says to prefer this over get_band_dots for historical performance, nor what conditions select it. The only conditional context is the payment path, not tool selection.
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.