Get today's research verdict for a coin (e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL): stance (overweight/neutral/underweight), graded dimensions (technical/sentiment/funding/KOL), key levels, and a link to the full dossier. Refreshed daily; free; not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the verdict is refreshed daily, free, and not investment advice. It also outlines the output structure, providing reasonable transparency for a safe read operation. However, it omits any rate limits or required permissions.
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 (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: what is returned, sample symbols, output components, and meta-info (refreshed daily, free, disclaimer). No redundant or vague content.
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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It fully explains the input (coin symbol), the output structure (stance, dimensions, levels, link), and additional properties (daily update, cost, disclaimer). No missing critical details.
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?
Although the input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter, the description compensates by providing concrete examples (BTC, ETH, SOL) and indicating the expected format (coin symbol). This adds meaningful value beyond the schema's parameter name alone.
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 a daily research verdict for a specific coin symbol, listing the output components (stance, graded dimensions, key levels, link) and providing examples (BTC, ETH, SOL). It is distinct from siblings like get_kol_leaderboard (KOL-specific) or get_market_overview (market-wide), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies use for obtaining a single coin's research verdict, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide, but explicit guidelines would improve it.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: per-coin vs whole-market verdicts, per-coin vs overall track records, a leaderboard, and a symbol discovery tool. No two tools overlap in their primary function, and descriptions reinforce the differences.
Five of six tools follow the 'get_' + noun pattern (get_kol_leaderboard, get_market_overview, get_receipts, get_track_record, get_verdict), but list_coins deviates by using 'list_' instead of 'get_'. The pattern is otherwise very consistent.
Six tools is right-sized for a read-only research API. Each tool addresses a clear aspect of the domain (discovery, current verdicts, historical performance, market-wide summary, and influencer data) without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of a verdict-based research service: discovery (list_coins), current verdicts for one coin (get_verdict) and all coins (get_market_overview), settled performance for one coin (get_track_record) and overall (get_receipts), plus a unique KOL leaderboard. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.