Recent crypto news with sentiment for one or more symbols: title, source, sentiment (Positive/Neutral/Negative), date, topic tags. PRIMARY tool for ticker-specific crypto drilling (BTC, ETH, SOL, COIN, MSTR) — call when the user asks what's happening with a specific coin; use by_category for market-wide questions. 60s cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | ||
| tickers | Yes | ||
| date_range | No | today |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a 60s cache notice and specifies the sentiment categories and output fields, giving the agent expectations. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only news tool this is largely sufficient.
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 three sentences long and every part serves a purpose: output description, usage guidance, and cache notice. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.
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?
The description is strong for tool selection, covering purpose, usage, and high-level output. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it fails to document the input parameters (items, date_range) and the exact ticker format, which are needed for reliable invocation. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only refers to 'one or more symbols' for the required tickers parameter, but does not explain the format of the string, nor does it mention the items count or the date_range enum values. This leaves the agent without enough information to correctly construct arguments.
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 states the tool returns recent crypto news with sentiment for one or more symbols, and lists the output fields (title, source, sentiment, date, topic tags). It also positions itself as the PRIMARY tool for ticker-specific crypto drilling, which differentiates it from siblings like by_category.
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 explicitly says to call this tool when the user asks what's happening with a specific coin, and to use by_category for market-wide questions. This direct guidance names an alternative, making the decision clear.
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.
