The meme market mood for stonkfun coins (0-100: cold under 40, hot 60+), its parts and 7 days of hourly history.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_mood"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the mood scale thresholds, components, and 7-day hourly history, but it does not clarify permissions, pagination, return structure, or whether the operation is read-only beyond what 'get' implies.
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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core resource and then adds scale thresholds and historical scope. There is no redundant or filler text.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides enough context to understand the returned mood score and history. However, 'its parts' is vague and the return shape could be more explicit.
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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.
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 that this returns the meme market mood for stonkfun coins, including the 0-100 scale with cold/hot thresholds, its parts, and 7 days of hourly history. It is specific about the resource and output scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools such as get_signals.
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 explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_signals or get_top. Usage is only indirectly implied by the content.
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.