Today's daily-bar indicator readings for crypto coins, computed by a real backtesting engine from Binance closes: price, RSI-14, MACD state, SMA 50/200 posture, SuperTrend, Bollinger position, ATR volatility, 52-week range. Pass a coin ticker (e.g. 'btc') for one coin, or omit for the whole 50-coin board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Lower-case ticker, e.g. btc, eth, sol. Omit for all coins. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing the computation origin (real backtesting engine from Binance closes) and listing all indicators, providing context beyond the annotation.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the primary purpose and immediately provide actionable usage details, with no redundant words.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description fully conveys the returned data (a list of indicators for one or many coins), which is sufficient for a simple data retrieval tool with one optional parameter.
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% with a single parameter; the description adds practical examples ('e.g. btc') and clarifies the behavior when the parameter is omitted, exceeding the schema's description.
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 explicitly states the tool provides 'Today's daily-bar indicator readings for crypto coins' and lists specific indicators, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like backtesting and strategy tools.
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 tells when to pass a coin ticker or omit it for all coins, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives given sibling tools are mostly backtesting-related.
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: statistical checks, strategy comparison, historical returns, live signals, DCA, overfitting index, strategy listing, dataset query, backtesting, Q&A search, and glossary. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_overfitting, run_backtest, search_glossary). No mixing of conventions.
11 tools is well-scoped for a crypto backtesting server, covering the full workflow from strategy selection, backtesting, overfitting analysis, to educational queries without excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers core backtesting, overfitting diagnostics, data retrieval, and knowledge base searches. Minor gaps like strategy modification or saving results are present, but the main lifecycle is complete.
