Retrieve thesis posts for a token address on a specified network using time-bounded paging. Filter results with before/after time, limit, and threshold to access relevant insights in a defined timeframe.
Thesis posts with time paging
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| afterTime | No | ||
| networkId | Yes | ||
| threshold | No | ||
| beforeTime | No | ||
| tokenAddress | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at a time-paging mechanism, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how paging interacts with beforeTime/afterTime, what order results are returned in, or any side effects. This is minimal, non-misleading but insufficient disclosure.
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 only four words, so it is not wordy, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks a subject-verb structure and omits critical information, so the brevity does not serve the agent.
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 6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It fails to explain the time-paging semantics, the token/network requirement, or what 'sorted' means, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
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% and the description provides zero explanation of the six parameters (tokenAddress, networkId, limit, threshold, beforeTime, afterTime). An agent cannot infer what 'threshold' means or how the time parameters behave, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 is a noun phrase with no explicit verb: 'Thesis posts with time paging.' It does not say whether the tool fetches, lists, or creates thesis posts, and it does not clarify what 'sorted' means relative to the sibling tool fomo_token_thesis. This is close to a tautology of the tool name.
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 about when to use this tool versus fomo_token_thesis, fomo_token_feed, or any other sibling. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.