Evening crypto market-recap digest, published Mon-Fri at 7pm ET. Call this when the user asks for an end-of-day crypto wrap-up or a morning briefing needs an overnight crypto recap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the publication schedule and use cases, but it does not disclose what the digest contains, whether it is a static article or dynamically generated, how fresh the data is, or what happens if called outside the scheduled time. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a digest tool.
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, front-loaded with the core definition, and every sentence adds value: what it is, when it's published, and when to call it. There is no redundant wording or 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?
The tool is simple, but the absence of an output schema means the description should explain what the response looks like; it only says 'digest'. It also omits how to paginate results and what content is included. While the purpose is sufficient for selection, it is not complete for invocation without making assumptions.
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 schema has a single optional integer parameter 'page' with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not mention 'page' or explain pagination behavior, so the agent gets no added semantic meaning. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 an 'Evening crypto market-recap digest' with a specific schedule (Mon-Fri at 7pm ET). It also differentiates from the many sibling tools by specifying the crypto scope and the exact use-case triggers, such as 'end-of-day crypto wrap-up' or 'overnight crypto recap'.
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 provides two concrete usage scenarios: 'when the user asks for an end-of-day crypto wrap-up' or when 'a morning briefing needs an overnight crypto recap'. This gives clear guidance on when to invoke, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, which keeps it 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.
