List every coin symbol CoinVerdict covers with a daily research verdict (100 major crypto assets: BTC, ETH, SOL, …). Use this to discover which symbols get_verdict / get_track_record accept. Returns {coins: [SYM,...], count: int, site: url}. Free, read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, but description discloses read-only nature, free access, and return format. Lacks details on rate limits or side effects, but for a simple read-only list this is sufficient.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word adds value.
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 zero-parameter tool returning a list, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, return shape, and safety. No gaps.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by specifying return structure (coins, count, site) and the purpose of discovering accepted symbols.
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?
Clearly states the tool lists every coin symbol covered by CoinVerdict with a daily research verdict, specifying scope (100 major assets). Distinguishes from siblings which provide specific verdicts or track records.
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?
Explicitly tells agents to use this to discover accepted symbols for get_verdict and get_track_record, implying when to use it. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.
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.