Get historical supply data for a specific stablecoin.
Args:
symbol: Stablecoin ticker, e.g. USDT, USDC, DAI (required)
days: Number of days of history
start_date: Start date YYYY-MM-DD
end_date: End date YYYY-MM-DD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| symbol | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the scope of 'historical supply data' but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format, data source, or date handling rules. The description is not misleading but adds limited transparency 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 compact and front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The tool is relatively simple and benefits from strong annotations, but the description lacks details about the output structure (e.g., what fields constitute 'supply data') and does not resolve the symbol-required inconsistency. The overall context is sufficient for a basic understanding, but gaps remain for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each argument, including examples for symbol and date format. However, it incorrectly marks symbol as required while the schema shows a default of '' and no required parameters. It also does not clarify the relationship between days and start_date/end_date, leaving some ambiguity.
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 action (Get historical supply data), the resource (a specific stablecoin), and differentiates from sibling tools like orbuc_stablecoin_coin_latest by emphasizing 'historical' and 'specific'. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinct.
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 usage for a single stablecoin's historical data rather than aggregate or latest data, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is inferable from the phrase 'specific stablecoin' and 'historical', but no direct guidance is given.
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 clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The BTC tools focus on holdings data with different temporal granularities (current, daily, weekly) and segment breakdowns, while the stablecoin tools cover market cap, supply data, chain distribution, and health checks. There is no functional overlap between tools, making selection straightforward.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear prefix structure: 'orbuc_btc_' for Bitcoin-related tools and 'orbuc_stablecoin_' for stablecoin-related tools. The naming convention is uniform throughout, using descriptive nouns and adjectives to differentiate functions (e.g., 'health', 'current', 'daily', 'segments').
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for its dual-domain purpose covering BTC holdings and stablecoin data. The count is appropriate, providing comprehensive coverage without bloat, and each tool serves a distinct, necessary function in the data retrieval and monitoring workflow.
The tool set offers complete coverage for both BTC holdings and stablecoin data domains. For BTC, it includes health checks, current holdings, daily/weekly time series, and segment breakdowns. For stablecoins, it covers health, aggregate data, chain distribution, historical and latest coin-specific data, and market cap tracking, leaving no obvious gaps for typical agent workflows.