Get the SETTLED track record for a coin — CoinVerdict's differentiator. Every past daily verdict is scored 7 days later against BTC: win, loss, or push. Returns the coin's W/L/P scoreboard plus recent settled calls (date, stance, 7d-vs-BTC return, outcome). This is the receipts: misses included, never edited. Args: symbol e.g. "BTC". Free, read-only, not advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, never edited (data integrity), includes misses, and is not advice. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so effectively.
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 concise for the amount of information it conveys, with a clear front-loading of the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (scoreboard, recent calls, outcomes). For a simple one-parameter tool, this is complete and informative.
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%, but the description adds an example ('symbol e.g. 'BTC'') and clarifies the parameter's purpose. This adds meaning beyond the input schema's minimal definition.
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 retrieves the SETTLED track record for a coin, detailing that it includes W/L/P scoreboard and recent settled calls with outcomes. It distinguishes the tool as CoinVerdict's differentiator, providing a specific verb and resource.
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 mentions the tool is free, read-only, and not advice, but does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools like get_verdict or get_receipts. Usage context is implied through the focus on historical track record, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
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.