get_cex_outflowsNet ETH outflows across known CEX hot wallets (Binance, Coinbase, OKX, Kraken, Bitfinex) over a window. Outflow = bullish (BTC moving to cold storage). Inflow = distribution pressure. Etherscan free tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exchange | No | Filter to a single exchange or aggregate all (default: all) | all |
| window_hours | No | Lookback window in hours (default: 24h, max: 7d) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral traits: data source (Etherscan free tier) and interpretation (outflow bullish, inflow distribution pressure). 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with main action. Every sentence adds value: tool purpose and interpretive guidance. No wasted words.
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?
Parameters well-covered, annotations present, but no output schema description. For a data-retrieval tool, knowing the return format (e.g., single number, time series) would improve completeness.
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 covers both parameters with 100% coverage. Description does not add details beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
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 'Net ETH outflows across known CEX hot wallets' over a window, with specific exchanges listed. This distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on a unique on-chain metric.
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?
Provides context on bullish/bearish interpretation and mentions 'Etherscan free tier' hinting at limitations. However, no explicit comparison to sibling tools like get_whale_flow or when to use this vs others.
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.