get_crypto_trend on the newest completed UTC daily close — evaluated every calendar day including weekends, stamped with the close it used. The free tool is one close behind. No wallet? get_crypto_trend is free. $0.005 USDC per call (x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing costs ($0.005 USDC per call), update frequency (daily including weekends), and output stamping (close used). However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe potential errors or rate limits. The mention of 'x402' is cryptic for some users.
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 concise, with four short sentences each adding relevant information: core function, timeliness, free alternative, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor repetition of 'get_crypto_trend' and a casual tone ('No wallet?') prevent a 5.
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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the trend value or signal). It mentions the close stamp but never explicitly states the output type or format. It covers cost and update timing, but leaves the return value ambiguous, so it is only minimally complete.
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 schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (there are none), but that is not needed.
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 resource (crypto trend) and the timing (newest completed UTC daily close), and it distinguishes from the sibling 'get_crypto_trend' by emphasizing timeliness and cost. However, it relies on the sibling's meaning for 'trend' and does not fully explain what the tool returns, so it is not 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 description gives practical guidance: it mentions the free alternative ('get_crypto_trend is free') and when to use this paid version (when you need the newest close, not one close behind). It also notes it updates every calendar day, implying freshness. There is no explicit 'use this when X, otherwise Y', but the context is 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.
Most market-data and storefront tools are cleanly scoped, but there is meaningful overlap: get_full_board and get_engine_feed are near-duplicates, get_buy_list overlaps with get_morning_brief's candidate list, and get_orders / get_order_status are identical NotOffered stubs. The free/live twin pairs are clearly labeled so agents can distinguish latency/payment intent, but the sheer number of related reads creates selection friction.
The large get_* data family is very predictable (get_stock_read, get_stock_read_live, get_rotation, get_rotation_live), and storefront ools use clear verb_noun actions (add_to_cart, remove_from_cart, save_memory). Minor deviations like checkout_handoff and the get_live_setup / get_live_rules naming (which could be misread as *_live twins) keep it from a perfect score.
46 tools is well abovethe 25+ threshold for a coherent toset; at leat13 are direc live twins of free readable plus a 14-tool storefont/memory subdomain. Many could be consoliated into ingle tools with a delay/live param or a single storefront resource, making the surface feel bloated for agents.
The market-data surface is very comphehensive: regime, buy-list, hold-state, rotation, sector, stock, crypto day/night/trend/setups, full board, archived board, changes, and engine-feed coverage leave few dead ends for the stated trading-intelligence purpose. Storefont is adequate but has minor acknowledged gaps—orders/order-status are NotOffered stubs and session memories have no update/delete—so it is not a perfect 5.
