get_asset_flowsGet daily net ETF flow history for a single crypto asset over the last 30 days. Returns a time series of net USD millions per day (positive = inflow, negative = outflow). Figures are asset-level totals; the per-fund breakdown (IBIT, FBTC, ETHA and others) is returned by get_fund_flows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Asset to fetch: btc, eth, sol, xrp, hyp, doge, link, avax, hbar, ltc, bnb, dot, sui, near, trx, zec |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / asset / descriptionPrevious value: -"Asset to fetch: btc, eth, sol, xrp, hyp, doge, link, avax, hbar, ltc, bnb, dot, sui"New value: +"Asset to fetch: btc, eth, sol, xrp, hyp, doge, link, avax, hbar, ltc, bnb, dot, sui, near, trx, zec"Input schema / properties / asset / enumPrevious value: -[
- "btc",
- "eth",
- "sol",
- "xrp",
- "hyp",
- "doge",
- "link",
- "avax",
- "hbar",
- "ltc",
- "bnb",
- "dot",
- "sui"
-]New value: +[
+ "btc",
+ "eth",
+ "sol",
+ "xrp",
+ "hyp",
+ "doge",
+ "link",
+ "avax",
+ "hbar",
+ "ltc",
+ "bnb",
+ "dot",
+ "sui",
+ "near",
+ "trx",
+ "zec"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: the return is a time series of net USD millions per day, positive means inflow, negative outflow, and the window is fixed at 30 days.
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?
Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and sign convention, closing with the sibling disambiguation. No filler.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape information (daily net USD millions, sign convention) and the fixed time window, leaving nothing essential unstated.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a fully enumerated asset list, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description only reinforces 'single crypto asset' without adding format, default, or casing nuance beyond what the enum already shows.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Get daily net ETF flow history for a single crypto asset'), a fixed scope (last 30 days), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_fund_flows by noting this returns asset-level totals rather than per-fund breakdown.
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?
Names the alternative (get_fund_flows) and the condition that selects it — per-fund detail. That is clear routing, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of other siblings like get_flows_summary.
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.