get_cefi_indexGet the composite CEFI (Crypto ETF Flow Index) sentiment score across all tracked assets. Baseline = 100. Above 100 means net inflow bias (bullish), below 100 means outflow bias (bearish).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful interpretive behavior beyond annotations: baseline 100, above meaning bullish net inflow bias, below meaning bearish outflow bias.
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 tight sentences with no filler: the first identifies the operation and scope, the second explains the score interpretation. Everything present earns its place.
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 tool, the description fully covers what the score means, the baseline, and the bullish/bearish interpretation. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough context for an agent to understand and use the returned sentiment value.
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 baseline score is 4. There is no parameter information needed, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the composite CEFI sentiment score across all tracked assets.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset_flows or get_prices, which focus on per-asset or pricing data.
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 implies use as a top-level composite market sentiment read rather than per-asset flows or analytics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope phrasing makes the intended use reasonably 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.
Each tool has a clear primary focus: single-asset historical flows, composite sentiment index, latest cross-sectional flows, prices, and weekly aggregation. The only minor overlap is between get_flows_summary and get_weekly_analytics, but their descriptions make the distinction obvious.
All tool names follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern using snake_case, with clear descriptive suffixes like asset_flows, flows_summary, and weekly_analytics. There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
Five tools is well-scoped for a read-only crypto ETF analytics server. Each tool covers a distinct data need without redundancy, and the count is appropriate for the narrow domain.
The set covers the core query surface for ETF flow data: recent daily snapshot, single-asset history, weekly aggregates, sentiment index, and prices. Minor gaps exist, such as no multi-asset historical comparison or explicit asset list endpoint, but these are unlikely to cause major agent failures.