Crypto news where ALL the listed coins co-appear in the same story — a correlation feed. Call this when the user asks how two or more coins are linked in the news, e.g. stories covering both BTC and ETH together.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| items | No | ||
| tickers | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: ALL listed coins must co-appear, not just any subset. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response format, sorting, date filtering, or what happens with invalid tickers. It adds the core correlation behavior but omits other operational details that would be expected given zero annotation support.
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 long and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a usage example. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's function and appropriate context. It is tightly written with no repetition or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides the essential conceptual purpose and a usage scenario, but it lacks critical operational details. The agent is not told how to format the 'tickers' parameter, what the response looks like, or how pagination via 'page' and 'items' affects results. While the core functionality is clear, the missing parameter syntax details create a significant gap for successful invocation. This is adequate but not 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 explaining the parameters. It clarifies that the 'tickers' parameter represents the listed coins (via 'listed coins'), but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., comma-separated string, repeated arguments) or provide an example syntax. It also gives no explanation for the 'page' and 'items' parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema defaults alone. This partial coverage of the primary parameter without addressing pagination controls is insufficient.
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's function with a specific verb and resource: it returns crypto news stories where all listed coins co-appear, described as a correlation feed. This distinguishes it from siblings like tengu_v3_news_crypto_latest or tengu_v3_news_multi_ticker by emphasizing the 'all co-appear' requirement and the crypto focus. The example with BTC and ETH reinforces the specific purpose.
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 an explicit 'when to call' instruction: when the user asks how two or more coins are linked in the news, illustrated with a concrete example. This is strong usage guidance, but it does not mention when NOT to use the tool or explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., tengu_v3_news_multi_ticker for non-crypto multi-ticker, or tengu_v3_news_crypto_latest for single-coin news). The clear trigger scenario earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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.
