tickerGemini crypto exchange (US-regulated) v1 ticker for a crypto pair like "btcusd": bid, ask, last, 24h volume. Use for current Gemini pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ask | No | Current ask price | |
| bid | No | Current bid price | |
| last | No | Last trade price | |
| symbol | No | Trading pair symbol | |
| volume | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive. The description adds that it returns bid, ask, last, and 24h volume, which matches the read-only nature. Some extra context but not substantial beyond annotations.
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 a single sentence, front-loading the key information (exchange, version, data fields). No unnecessary 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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main return fields and data source. It could mention case sensitivity or pair format, but overall adequate for a straightforward ticker.
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 0% description coverage; the description provides an example ('btcusd') but no format rules or restrictions. This partially compensates but lacks complete semantic guidance.
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 tool provides a ticker for a crypto pair on Gemini, specifically mentioning bid, ask, last, and 24h volume. It distinguishes from the sibling 'ticker_v2' by specifying 'v1' and 'US-regulated' exchange, making the purpose precise.
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 description says 'Use for current Gemini pricing,' which indicates when to use. It implies not for historical data or other exchanges, but doesn't explicitly list alternatives. Clear enough given the context.
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.
Many tools serve overlapping research purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities), which could confuse an agent. However, descriptions help differentiate them by use case (single vs multi-part, grounded vs standard, etc.). Some overlap remains.
Tool names mix patterns: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), others are noun_phrase (price_feed, recent_alerts) or adjective_noun (ticker_v2). No strong naming convention, but all use snake_case consistently, making them readable.
40 tools is on the high side for a single server, covering both Gemini exchange data and Pipeworx's broad knowledge tools. While each tool serves a purpose, the scope feels broad, and some tools could be separated into dedicated servers.
The Gemini exchange tools cover essential read-only data (order book, candles, ticker, trades), but lack order placement, likely intentionally. The Pipeworx tools provide extensive research capabilities across many domains, leaving few gaps for the stated purposes.