get_recent_newsRecent crypto news headlines matching an asset ticker, from CoinDesk + The Block + Decrypt + Cointelegraph RSS feeds. Pro adds the 1h price move that followed each headline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Asset ticker to filter on, e.g. "BTC", "ETH", "HYPE" | |
| limit | No | Max headlines returned (default: 10) | |
| hours_back | No | Lookback window in hours (default: 24, max: 168 = 7 days) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context about the data sources (CoinDesk, The Block, Decrypt, Cointelegraph RSS feeds) and the Pro feature (1h price move). This enhances transparency beyond annotations.
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 core functionality, no extraneous information. Efficient and clear.
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?
While the description covers purpose and sources, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., that it returns headlines as strings, any metadata). With no output schema, the description could be more complete about what the agent receives.
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 100%, so the description adds modest value. It mentions asset ticker format and sources, but does not add new details for limit or hours_back beyond the schema defaults and constraints.
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 that the tool returns recent crypto news headlines matching an asset ticker from four specific sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling news tools like get_news_correlation by focusing on headlines and asset ticker matching.
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 usage for getting news headlines for a specific asset, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_news_correlation, nor does it specify when not to use 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.
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.