Set a Telegram price alert for a crypto asset. Triggers when price goes above or below target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | Asset ticker: btc, sol, eth, xmr | |
| target | Yes | Target price in USD | |
| tg_chat | Yes | Telegram Chat ID to receive the alert | |
| direction | Yes | Trigger when price is above or below target |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description minimally restates the annotations (non-destructive, non-readOnly). It does not disclose important behavioral details like alert persistence, overwriting behavior, or authorization requirements, which are not covered by 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 two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently explains the trigger behavior.
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 tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what happens after setting an alert (e.g., confirmation, persistence) or how to manage alerts. The minimal detail leaves gaps for a user unfamiliar with the system.
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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description adds little new meaning. It repeats that triggers occur above/below target, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: setting a Telegram price alert for a crypto asset, with specific trigger conditions (above/below target). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_prices or rug_check.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use when you want to be notified of price changes'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
