Retrieve current price and market information for the STBTCx token to monitor cryptocurrency values.
Get current STBTCx token price and market info
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "stbtcx_price"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet description carries minimal burden. 'Current' implies real-time but doesn't confirm data source, freshness guarantees, or what 'market info' encompasses (volume, market cap, 24h change?). No mention of authentication requirements or error behaviors.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. However, extreme brevity is inappropriate given complete absence of annotations and output schema; description should be longer to compensate for missing structured metadata.
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?
With zero parameters and no annotations/output schema, the description should hint at return value structure or elaborate on 'market info' contents. As written, it provides minimal viable context for a simple lookup tool but leaves significant gaps regarding expected data payload.
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?
Zero parameters present; scores baseline 4 per rubric. Schema coverage is vacuously 100% with no properties to describe.
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?
Clear verb 'Get' and specific resource 'STBTCx token price and market info' identifies the exact token, distinguishing it from sibling tool 'crypto_price' which appears generic. However, it assumes familiarity with STBTCx rather than briefly clarifying what this token represents.
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 on when to use this versus 'crypto_price' (generic) or 'buy_stbtcx' (transaction). No mention of prerequisites, rate limits, or typical workflow (e.g., checking price before buying).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.