market_intelligence[$0.005 USD per call] Real-time crypto market price data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Path parameter 'symbol' | |
| payment | No | Optional x402 payment proof (EIP-3009 signed authorization). Call once without it to receive the payment requirements, then retry with the proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "symbol": "ETH"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It adds a per-call cost and a 'real-time' freshness qualifier, which are useful. It does not disclose rate limits, data sources, response size, or other behavioral caveats.
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 a single compact phrase with the cost information front-loaded. It avoids restating the tool name or title, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for a simple one-required-parameter lookup tool.
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?
Given one required parameter, the worked example in the schema, and strong read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is adequate for placing a first call. The main gap is the lack of an output schema and no detail about what the returned 'price data' actually contains, such as current price, OHLC, or market cap.
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%, and the schema already provides a worked example ('ETH') and a detailed explanation of the payment authorization flow. The description adds the 'crypto' context, clarifying that 'symbol' refers to a cryptocurrency symbol, but it does not materially enrich parameter semantics beyond that.
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 identifies a concrete resource — real-time crypto market price data — so an agent can tell this is a price-lookup tool rather than a generic analytics service. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and it does not differentiate from siblings such as defi_lp_analytics or token_security, which keeps it below a 5.
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 intended use case is implied: call this tool when real-time crypto market price data is needed. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools, no exclusionary cases, and no mention of the payment preflight flow as a usage step.
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.