On-demand institutional market intelligence snapshot combining Base DEX spot & TWAP prices, Aerodrome/Uniswap V3 liquidity depth, perpetual funding rates, and Polymarket whale orderbook divergence. Price: 0.020 USDC on Base or Solana.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assets | No | ||
| include_polymarket | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regime | Yes | ||
| network | Yes | ||
| assets_covered | Yes | ||
| polymarket_whale_signals | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "assets_covered": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "network": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "polymarket_whale_signals": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "regime": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "network",
+ "regime",
+ "assets_covered"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it discloses the paid cost of 0.020 USDC and the specific market-data domains included, though it does not explain payment mechanics or rate limits.
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 tightly packed sentences with no waste. The core purpose and data sources are front-loaded, and the price is appended as a secondary but important invocation detail.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior, so return values and safety do not need explanation. However, for a paid open-world tool with two undocumented parameters, the description omits parameter meanings and payment/auth flow, leaving invocation details incomplete.
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 0% for both parameters. The description does not explain the `assets` array or the `include_polymarket` boolean, beyond indirectly mentioning Polymarket as part of the data mix. It leaves the agent to infer parameter behavior from the schema 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 states a specific verb-like purpose and resource: an on-demand institutional market intelligence snapshot. It lists the exact data sources combined, making the tool distinguishable from generic price or pool-inspection siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
Usage is implied by 'on-demand institutional market intelligence snapshot combining...' and the stated price, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as getCryptoPriceOnchain, inspectUniswapPoolState, or getTokenHistoryAndSpread.
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.