Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
crypto-deep-research

crypto-deep-research

by alikula37
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_reports

List generated crypto research reports to review prior analyses and findings, with an optional limit on results.

Instructions

Uretilmis raporlari listeler.

Tool call template

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": "list_reports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether results are paginated, capped, ordered, or scoped to the caller, and it does not state permissions or side effects. 'Generated reports' hints at a read-only listing but never confirms it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Nothing is front-loaded because there is only one clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a listing tool with an undocumented limit parameter, no annotations, and no usage context, the description leaves significant gaps an agent needs before invoking it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, which has a default of 20 but no documented meaning in either schema or description. The description does not compensate by explaining what limit controls or its bounds.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (listeler = lists) and resource (uretilmis raporlar = generated reports), which is clearer than mere tautology. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like list_analyses or list_research_items, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from names alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The listing intent is weakly implied by 'listeler' but nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable to get_report or the other list_* siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools