zora_scannerScan Zora for trending coins and trading signals. Returns top movers with market cap, volume, 24h change, and BUY/SELL/STRONG_BUY signals.
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": "zora_scanner"
}
}| 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, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns a set of fields and signal ratings, which is useful, but it does not disclose data freshness, whether the operation is strictly read-only, authentication needs, or how the BUY/SELL/STRONG_BUY signals are determined.
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 sentences: one for the action and one for the return value. Everything earns its place, there is no filler, and the key output details are presented efficiently.
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 scanner with no output schema, the description gives the essential return fields and makes the tool's purpose sufficiently clear. It would be more complete with an explicit note that it returns a list of coin objects or a statement about signal methodology, but those are minor gaps rather than blocking issues.
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 input schema is empty and the description has no parameter semantics to explain. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; no additional parameter context is necessary.
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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and identifies the resource ('Zora') plus the output ('top movers with market cap, volume, 24h change, and BUY/SELL/STRONG_BUY signals'). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like token_price or new_launches.
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 guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of a sibling such as token_price, new_launches, or chart_roast. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'Scanner' and the function name, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
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.