Did Talon catch every coin that went under $25k to $500k+, every $100k–$200k sit that later printed millions, and off-chain printers like Vape Cat on BSC and Ember on Solana? Locked fixtures fail the build if a printer is missed. Last-3-days is the live FOMO book through the same flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that missed printers fail the build and that last-3-days is a live mode, but it says nothing about return values, side effects, or what 'the same flag' refers to.
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 only three sentences and contains relevant information, but the first sentence is a long, convoluted rhetorical question packed with price ranges and examples. Key behavioral facts are buried in the second sentence instead of being front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or what success/failure looks like, but none of that appears. Undefined terminology ('printers', 'FOMO book', 'flag') and a custom domain make the description insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
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?
With zero parameters and an empty input schema, parameter documentation is not needed. The description does mention a 'flag' that is not exposed in the schema, but since there are no actual parameter semantics to clarify, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 frames the tool as an evaluator of whether Talon caught certain coins, with a locked-fixture mode that fails builds on misses. However, it is phrased as a rhetorical question rather than a direct statement of action, and it relies on undefined jargon ('printers', 'FOMO book') so it is only vaguely separable from the many talon_* siblings.
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 two usage contexts: locked fixtures as a build-time check and last-3-days as a live mode. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance and no comparison to sibling alternatives, so an agent can only infer when it should be chosen.
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.