Printers on other chains (BSC, Solana, Base). Hunt matches the six-hour keep. Copies of the same ticker are not the print — the mint with the LP is. Ember on Solana and Vape Cat on BSC are this book. Hands does not buy these. If the same name opens on Robinhood, talon_open fires. No fill size. No exit. Does not sign.
| 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?
The description discloses negative behaviors ('No fill size. No exit. Does not sign.') but is silent on what the tool actually does, its side effects, or its read/write nature. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to explain whether this is a read-only signal or triggers any action.
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 short but dense with jargon ('six-hour keep', 'mint with the LP'). It front-loads the subject but then wanders into unclear clauses. It's not efficiently structured; the cryptic language reduces clarity more than length.
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?
Given the tool's apparent complexity (crypto trading signals across chains), the description is severely under-specified. It doesn't define key terms, doesn't explain what the tool returns (no output schema), and leaves the agent guessing about the exact purpose and behavior. With no output schema and zero annotations, the description is the only guide and it's inadequate.
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 schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it doesn't. This baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing to compensate for.
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 names a subject ('Printers on other chains') but never states the actual action the tool performs (e.g., lists, monitors, alerts). It offers cryptic distinctions and examples that assume deep domain knowledge, so an agent cannot infer what invoking this tool accomplishes.
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?
It references sibling tools ('Hands does not buy these', 'talon_open fires') but never gives clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The exclusions are implied rather than explicit, and there's no statement of the conditions under which an agent should call this tool versus alternatives.
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.