Get historical daily total stablecoin market cap across all tracked issuers.
Returns daily total_mcap_usd, daily_change_usd, and daily_change_pct.
Source: Orbuc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | 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. The description adds that it returns specific daily fields and notes the source, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like default date ranges or data update frequency. This adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context.
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 three short, front-loaded sentences. It states the purpose, lists returned fields, and notes the source. Every sentence earns its place with 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?
With no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description should compensate by explaining input semantics. It describes the output fields but omits how to use the three optional parameters or any context on selecting this tool among sibling stablecoin tools. The overall completeness is inadequate for effective invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameters (days, start_date, end_date) at all. It fails to explain how to specify the date range or how the parameters interact, leaving the agent without guidance on constructing valid requests.
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 tool gets historical daily total stablecoin market cap across all tracked issuers. It specifies the exact return fields (total_mcap_usd, daily_change_usd, daily_change_pct), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orbuc_stablecoin_latest or orbuc_stablecoin_aggregate.
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 alternatives. No mention of when to choose it over orbuc_stablecoin_aggregate or orbuc_stablecoin_latest. The description only states what it does, not its intended use cases 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.
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.