Free live BTC-only sample of the dual-basis kimchi premium. Use the paid endpoint for up to 10 symbols.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "preview_kimchi_premium"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is free, live, BTC-only, and a sample, but it does not explain update frequency, access/auth requirements, rate limits, or what exactly 'sample' omits.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences: one states what the tool provides, and the other routes to the paid alternative. There is no wasted detail or redundant phrasing.
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 no-parameter preview tool, the description gives a reasonable high-level overview, but with no output schema it does not state the response shape or fields. The term 'sample' is also vague, and the paid-endpoint reference would benefit from naming the exact sibling tool.
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 with full schema coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies.
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 identifies the tool as a free, live, BTC-only sample of the kimchi premium, using a specific resource and scope. It also distinguishes it from the paid multi-symbol endpoint referenced within the description.
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 explicitly states the primary use case (free BTC-only preview) and directs the agent to the paid endpoint for up to 10 symbols. However, it does not name the paid sibling tool directly or mention other alternatives like history or stats tools, leaving some routing ambiguity.
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.