Crypto Perps Pulse MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default threshold (10%) and the 24h lookback window, plus that results are limited to 'liquid' perps, but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or what 'funding context' actually contains.

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?

One tight sentence with the key qualifier ('alert list', threshold, window) front-loaded after the tier marker. No waste, though 'PRO' and 'liquid' are undefined jargon.

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 3-parameter screening tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks return-shape, result-count and min_volume_usd semantics. Adequate but not self-sufficient.

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 coverage is only 33%; threshold_pct is partly explained by the 'default 10%' mention and min_volume_usd is loosely implied by 'liquid perps', but neither is defined (units, bounds, filtering semantics). The description partially compensates but leaves real gaps.

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?

States the resource (liquid perps), the selection criterion (>threshold move in 24h) and the payload (funding context) clearly. It implicitly contrasts with funding_extremes and perp_scanner but never names them, so an agent must infer the split.

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 'PRO' prefix and 'alert list' framing imply it is a screening/notification tool for subscribers, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to market_pulse, perp_scanner or funding_extremes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations, so description must disclose behavior. It notes 'PRO' (subscriber token required) and scope (liquid perps), but omits whether it's read-only, rate limits, return format, and pagination. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with 'PRO.' flagging the tier. However, the sentence could be slightly clearer about what the tool returns (e.g., 'Returns...'). It's efficient but not perfectly structured.

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 data retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain parameters and output fields. It mentions annualised APR but leaves n and min_volume_usd undefined, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

Only access_token is described in schema; n and min_volume_usd lack descriptions. The description doesn't explain what n controls or how min_volume_usd filters, leaving two of three parameters ambiguous despite low schema coverage.

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 specifies the resource (funding rates) and scope (liquid perps) and indicates the output (most positive/negative, annualised APR). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on extremes (crowded longs/shorts), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Implies usage for identifying crowded longs/shorts, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not, nor does it reference siblings like perp_scanner. A user must infer from 'crowded longs/shorts' that it's for sentiment analysis.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the exact fields returned, the 'top 3 24h movers among liquid perps' scope limit, and that the call is free. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or freshness/caching behavior, which are the remaining unknowns for a market-data read.

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?

A single tight sentence with the cost signal and payload front-loaded; every clause adds information. Slightly dense with semicolon-chained fields but no wasted words.

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-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, this is nearly complete: the agent knows exactly what data comes back and that it costs nothing. The one missing piece is explicit sibling differentiation against big_moves/perp_scanner/funding_extremes.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description's implicit note that results are a fixed 'top coins' set usefully signals that no filtering input is available.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a 'snapshot of the top coins' perpetual futures' with an enumerated payload (price, 24h change, funding rate, open interest, top movers). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from perp_scanner or big_moves, which plausibly overlap.

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 the 'FREE' tag and the snapshot framing, suggesting a cheap first-look/overview call. However, it never states when to prefer it over perp_scanner or big_moves, nor any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals neither that an access_token may be required for this 'PRO' tier, nor the result shape, ordering guarantees, or default limit — significant gaps for a tool whose name suggests paid/gated access.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and filtering capability front-loaded. The 'PRO.' token is the only wasted text; otherwise every clause carries information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 4 params at 25% coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained: authentication expectations, default/pagination behavior via 'limit', and what the scan returns are all absent.

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 coverage is only 25%. The description explains the sort axes and min-volume filter, but says nothing about 'limit' or the access_token requirement, and it names 'open interest' as a sort option that is not a valid enum value ('abs_change'/'abs_funding' go unmentioned). It adds partial meaning while introducing a mismatch.

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?

States a specific resource (all USDT perpetuals) and the full set of sort axes, so an agent can tell this is the broad market-wide scanner rather than a focused one. The bare 'PRO.' prefix adds nothing and the 'open interest' sort option it advertises does not appear in the enum, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this versus big_moves, funding_extremes, or market_pulse. The phrase 'Full scanner' implies it is the general-purpose entry point, but that routing decision is left entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.