riptide_crypto_recordSeparate toy crypto strategy paper record and honesty boundary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| product | Yes | ||
| available | No | ||
| disclaimer | Yes | ||
| real_orders | Yes | ||
| generated_at | Yes | ||
| execution_mode | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "available": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "disclaimer": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "execution_mode": {
+ "enum": [
+ "paper_only",
+ "read_only"
+ ]
+ },
+ "generated_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "kind": {
+ "const": "crypto_record",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "product": {
+ "const": "riptide"
+ },
+ "real_orders": {
+ "const": false
+ },
+ "schema": {
+ "const": "riptide.public.v1"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema",
+ "product",
+ "kind",
+ "generated_at",
+ "execution_mode",
+ "real_orders",
+ "disclaimer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful notion that this is a 'toy' strategy record and an 'honesty boundary', but the phrase is vague and does not explain what behavior or data boundary actually exists.
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 a single compact phrase with no filler or repeated annotation content. It front-loads the distinctive qualifiers 'sepArate' and 'toy', though it is grammatically a fragment rather than a full sentence.
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 zero-param, readOnly tool with an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. It names the intended domain and hints at a boundary, but 'honesty boundary' is left unexplained and the relationship to riptide_paper_record could be clearer.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. The 100% schema description coverage means nothing is undocumented; the baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed.
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 identifies the tool as concerning a 'toy crypto strategy paper record' and an 'honesty boundary', which adds context beyond the bare name. However, it lacks an explicit verb or clear action, so an agent cannot confidently tell whether this tool returns the record, enforces the boundary, or describes a status.
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 word 'sepArate' loosely implies this tool is distinct from other paper-record/strategy tools, and sibling names like riptide_paper_record give some context. Still, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus an alternative, nor any exclusion criteria.
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 information area: allocation, crypto record, event markets, methodology, overview, paper record, and risk evidence. The main potential confusion is that riptide_overview aggregates the latest allocation and both paper records, but the descriptions clarify that it is the summary view while the others provide focused details.
All tool names follow the same riptide_ prefix with a clear lowercase noun-phrase pattern. This is consistent and predictable across the entire set.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a public research and status server. Each tool represents a meaningful, non-redundant surface area, and the count is appropriate for the stated domain.
The set covers the core public surface: overview, allocations, paper records, crypto record, event market availability, methodology, and risk evidence. A minor gap is the lack of historical detail or raw risk event data, but that appears intentional based on the safety boundaries described.