Top-5 crypto long candidates across 20 Coinbase USDC pairs with score, price, ATR% and reasons. AI-operated market intelligence, not advice. Requires payment of $0.001 USDC.
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": "report"
}
}| 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 carries the transparency burden; it discloses a required payment of $0.001 USDC and clarifies that the output is AI-operated market intelligence, not advice. It does not detail payment mechanics or failure behavior, but the key side effect is stated.
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?
Two short sentences convey the tool's output, scope, non-advice nature, and cost. Every clause adds necessary information, and the main deliverable is front-loaded.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential invocation context: what the report contains, its universe of pairs, the cost, and its status as non-advice. No critical information appears missing.
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 schema coverage is complete by definition. The description correctly stays focused on behavior rather than pretending to document arguments.
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 identifies a specific deliverable: top-5 crypto long candidates across 20 Coinbase USDC pairs, including score, price, ATR%, and reasons. It is more specific than sibling tools like price or signals, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verbed action.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus signals, preview, or price. The description states the report is AI-operated and not advice, but it does not describe selection conditions or exclusions.
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.