get_market_snapshotSOL+BTC prices, funding rates, and Fear & Greed in one call. Costs 0.003 USDC per call (x402, USDC on Solana or Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | the get_market_snapshot payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_market_snapshot | |
| tool | Yes | the tool that produced this payload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "the get_market_snapshot payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_market_snapshot",
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "tool": {
+ "const": "get_market_snapshot",
+ "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool",
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add operational context. It discloses a non-obvious cost of 0.003 USDC per call and the x402/USDC settlement network, which is valuable beyond what annotations provide.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the data scope and the cost constraint without any redundancy. Every word contributes.
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 zero-parameter read-only snapshot with an output schema, the description covers the data scope and the only operational concern (cost). The output schema can handle structural return details, so nothing needed for a correct call is 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 and the schema fully covers that, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The zero-parameter baseline applies and is met.
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 names the aggregated resource (SOL+BTC prices, funding rates, Fear & Greed) and the verb is implicit in the tool name. It distinguishes this snapshot from single-metric siblings like get_btc_price, get_sol_price, get_funding_rate, and get_fear_greed.
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?
'In one call' conveys that this is the consolidated choice when multiple market signals are needed, and the cost note adds a decision-relevant tradeoff. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear.
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.