Live crypto quote from the market-data feed (real-time entitlement, 439 pairs): last-trade price, 24h change/volume (UTC-day basis), day + prev-day OHLC, optional last-7 daily bars, honest as_of. PRIMARY tool for 'what is BTC at?' — accepts BTC/BTCUSD/X:BTCUSD plus a vs currency (e.g. EUR); unknown symbols return a structured 404.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | No | USD | |
| series | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | Path parameter 'ticker' (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the real-time entitlement requirement, the 439 pair coverage, the honest as_of timestamp behavior, and error handling via a structured 404 for unknown symbols. It also clarifies the 24h change/volume is UTC-day based, providing essential behavioral context beyond any schema.
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 ('Live crypto quote'), and every clause adds value: return fields, entitlement, pair count, symbol formats, vs currency, and error behavior. No filler or 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 tool's simplicity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers the data fields returned, supported inputs, optional bars, timestamp nuance, access entitlement, and error handling. The 'structured 404' note and 'honest as_of' are particularly useful for an agent to set expectations.
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 only 33% and the sole entry is unhelpful. The description compensates by explaining ticker formats (BTC/BTCUSD/X:BTCUSD) and the vs currency parameter with an example, while 'optional last-7 daily bars' hints at the series flag. It does not exhaustively describe every parameter behavior, but adds meaningful guidance beyond the 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 identifies the tool as providing live crypto quotes from a market-data feed, listing specific return fields (last-trade price, 24h change/volume, OHLC, optional daily bars, as_of). It explicitly labels itself as the 'PRIMARY tool for what is BTC at?' which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools.
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 states a clear primary use case ('PRIMARY tool for what is BTC at?') and provides accepted symbol formats and the vs currency example (EUR). It does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'PRIMARY' label strongly implies this is the go-to tool for current quotes.
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.
With 336 tools, there is substantial overlap. Over a dozen health/status tools share nearly identical 'is the system healthy?' descriptions (e.g., tengu_status, tengu_ready, tengu_ml_health, tengu_v3_system_health, tengu_v3_stream_status), and multiple single-ticker analysis (tengu_ml_predict, tengu_copilot_score_ticker, tengu_v3_intel_ml_prediction) and top-picks (tengu_copilot_top_picks, tengu_ml_top_picks, tengu_v3_trade_setups) tools have poorly defined boundaries. Agents would frequently misselect.
The server mixes no-version (tengu_crypto), v2 (tengu_v2_drift), v3 (tengu_v3_intel_*), and copilot (tengu_copilot_*) families, and within families there is inconsistent verb/noun ordering (tengu_v3_research_fetch_url vs tengu_v3_news_summary). While subfamilies like tengu_v3_private_markets_* are internally consistent, the overall naming pattern is chaotic and unpredictable.
336 tools is far beyond any reasonable tool set size, even for an all-in-one financial data platform. This extreme count creates choice paralysis, high latency in tool selection, and makes the server effectively unusable for autonomous agents. The calibration guideline marks 50+ as extreme; this is nearly 7x that threshold.
The platform covers a vast domain: equity and crypto prices, fundamentals, insider trading, options, news (including crypto and FX), private markets, streaming data, risk metrics, and execution planning. There are minor gaps (no direct multi-ticker comparison tool, no order placement), but the surface is remarkably comprehensive for an analysis-focused server.
