create_api_keyGenerate a free PredMCP API key. Requires an email. Returns the key and ready-to-use MCP config. Free tier: 100 calls/day, one key per IP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Your email address — used to identify your key and for account recovery |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool is free, requires an email, returns a key and config, and includes rate limits (100 calls/day, one key per IP). Since readOnlyHint=false, the mutation is implicit, and the description confirms it. No contradictions.
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 extremely concise: three short sentences front-loading the purpose, then requirement and output, then limitations. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.
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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return value (key and config) and constraints (rate limits). It lacks details on error handling or behavior for duplicate emails, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (email), with a detailed description already in the schema. The tool description only mentions that an email is required, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: 'Generate a free PredMCP API key.' It specifies the action (generate), resource (API key), and context (free PredMCP). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are read-only (get_/search_ prefixes).
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 when to use (when you need an API key) and provides limits (free tier, 100 calls/day, one key per IP). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use, such as if the user already has a key or if the email is already used.
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.
Many tools are specialized, but several pairs have fuzzy boundaries: e.g., get_funding_rates vs get_top_funding_rates, get_basic_macro vs get_macro_context, get_simple_iv vs get_options_iv. An agent could easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a 'get_X' pattern with descriptive noun phrases. There are a few exceptions like 'create_api_key' and 'search_markets', but overall the convention is consistent and readable.
With 47 tools, the server is overloaded. While the domain is broad, this many tools makes discovery and selection difficult for an agent, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers an impressively wide range: macro data, funding, prediction markets, OI history, whale tracking, risk analytics, position sizing, backtesting, and signal generation. It leaves no obvious gaps for a crypto trading assistant.