get_regime[Market data: crypto] Stage 1 crypto regime check with raw values and rules. Paid: $0.01 USDC on Base, paid in-band via x402 MCP (@x402/mcp; _meta "x402/payment"). Also at GET https://micro-saas-agent.onrender.com/api/regime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the $0.01 USDC payment, in-band x402 MCP payment flow, and an alternate HTTP endpoint, but it does not state read-only behavior, rate limits, or response characteristics.
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 and front-loaded with the market-data category and core purpose, followed by payment and endpoint details. Every sentence provides useful invocation information without 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?
For a one-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation-critical payment details well. However, it omits return-value shape and sibling differentiation, leaving gaps an agent might need when deciding whether to call it.
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 single optional pass parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it skips per-call payment. The description does not add syntax or usage detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.
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 resource and scope: a Stage 1 crypto regime check returning raw values and rules. It is more than a restatement of the name, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings such as get_crypto_rules or get_full_signal.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. 'Stage 1' implies a pipeline position but is too vague to route an agent among the many sibling tools.
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.