Register as a NightWatch agent and get an API key. No wallet needed. Free tier: 100 req/day. Call this first before submitting discoveries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | No | Your agent's name (e.g. 'claude-miner-01') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides behavioral context: no wallet needed, free tier limit of 100 req/day, and hints at returning an API key. It does not fully explain side effects like key replacement, but is adequate for a registration tool.
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?
Three concise sentences front-load the primary action and outcomes, with 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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema and absent annotations, the description covers purpose, usage order, and limits. It omits details about how to use the API key, but remains fairly complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter agent_name already described. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the verb 'Register' and the resource 'as a NightWatch agent', with the outcome 'get an API key'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agent_contribute or agent_status by explicitly stating this is the first step.
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?
Explicitly advises 'Call this first before submitting discoveries', giving a clear usage order. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but for a registration tool this is sufficient.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_token_intel, get_token_research, and get_microburst overlap in coverage of token intelligence, which could cause agent misselection. Descriptions are detailed but some redundancy exists.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (agent_*, get_*, search_tokens). Minor deviations like 'get_microburst' and 'get_quartermaster' use less conventional nouns, but overall pattern is clear.
With 15 tools, the count is well-scoped for an intelligence platform covering agent interaction, token data, trading insights, and cross-venue analysis. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without being overwhelming.
The set covers identity management, fundamental data, price/market stats, orderbook microstructure, cross-venue verification, and comprehensive token intelligence. Minor gaps like historical data or advanced analytics are omitted, but core workflows are well-supported.