depth_episodesDetect realized BTC order-book depth collapse episodes, including onset, trough, and recovery under preregistered rules. Distinguishes zero from missing data; ETH added for exit_desk_full subscribers.
Realized BTC depth-collapse onset, trough, recovery under preregistered rules. Zero is distinct from missing. Subscriber exit_desk_full adds ETH.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: results follow preregistered (non-arbitrary) rules, zero readings must not be read as missing data, and coverage is subscription-gated (exit_desk_full extends it to ETH). That gives the agent data-interpretation and scoping knowledge not present in the annotations.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though the telegraphic phrasing ('under preregistered rules', 'Subscriber exit_desk_full adds ETH') pushes toward under-specification rather than clean concision.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying the return content, and it only gestures at it via onset/trough/recovery and the zero-vs-missing rule; the shape and meaning of each episode are unspecified. Subscription-tier scoping is disclosed, but an agent still lacks enough to interpret the response confidently.
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 takes zero parameters, which per the rubric sets a baseline of 4. The schema is empty and the description correctly introduces no parameter concepts, so nothing is missing or contradicted.
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 title and description name the resource clearly – realized BTC depth-collapse episodes decomposed into onset, trough and recovery – which no sibling covers. However it is a bare noun phrase with no verb (list/measure/compute), so the agent must infer whether this returns stored episodes or calculates them. Specific but not fully self-declaring.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus siblings like crypto_exit_check or unwind_watch, nor any precondition for calling it. 'Preregistered rules' hints at a fixed methodology but does not say when an agent should reach for this tool over the alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.