crypto_regime_boardRead the compact BTC/ETH Crypto Regime board: current change-point state, log-SR statistic, last shift, observation count and the display-only cross-read against disclosed bank exposure. Time-series paths stay on the public REST detail route. Takes no arguments; feeds no institution score and is not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it reveals the data source ('public REST detail route'), lists the displayed metrics, and explicitly states it does not feed institution scores. The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already cover safety, so the description enriches with output-related behavior. It could mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only board 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?
The description is compact: two sentences that pack the purpose, content listing, technical route, and disclaimers. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and the board name.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: it enumerates all returned fields, states the data source, and clarifies limitations. There is no missing detail that would prevent correct use.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description accurately states 'Takes no arguments', which is redundant with the empty schema but harmless. No parameter semantics are needed beyond the baseline.
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 specifies a read action on the 'compact BTC/ETH Crypto Regime board' and enumerates its exact contents (change-point state, log-SR statistic, last shift, observation count, cross-read). This distinguishes it from sibling boards like crypto_exposure_board and stablecoin_rails_board by naming unique data elements.
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 the tool is used to read this specific board and notes it 'feeds no institution score and is not investment advice', which provides a negative boundary. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.
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 targets a distinct resource, sector, or function: sector-specific boards (corporate, household, crypto, stablecoin, failure radar), evidence details by region, verification, search, and review packet generation. Descriptions explicitly delineate boundaries, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to select.
There are recognizable families (e.g., *_board for dashboards, evidence_* for validation records), but the set mixes conventions: noun-phrase boards, verb-first tools like universe_search and verify_published_record, and standalone nouns like forward_odds. This is readable but not uniform.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool has a distinct purpose and no redundancy. The count feels justified given the breadth of domains (India, US, Europe, crypto, stablecoins) and functions (monitoring, validation, verification, review).
The set covers the full workflow: universe_search for discovery, sector boards for monitoring, failure_radar_institution for deep dives, evidence_* for validation, forward_odds for probability context, verify_published_record for integrity, and institution_review_packet for human review. No obvious gaps or dead ends for the stated failure-radar domain.