gno_cvdCalculates cumulative volume delta—buy minus sell pressure—for one token over a selected period and interval, helping assess buyer vs. seller dominance. Consumes expensive units.
Buy minus sell pressure over time for one token. Costs expensive units.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| token | Yes | ||
| interval | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds a vague cost warning ('expensive units') but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how the cumulative window behaves, or what the response contains.
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 short sentences with no wasted language. The core computation is front-loaded before the cost caveat.
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 three-parameter analytics tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits key details such as interval semantics, time-window behavior, return format, and what 'expensive units' actually means.
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%, so the description should compensate for three undocumented parameters. It only loosely implies a token scope and a time dimension ('over time'), without explaining the token format, days meaning, interval choices, or defaults.
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 states a specific metric (buy minus sell pressure, i.e. cumulative volume delta) scoped to one token. It is clear what the tool computes, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as gno_ohlcv or gno_dex_series.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gno_ohlcv or gno_dex_series. 'Costs expensive units' is a cost warning, not usage guidance about appropriate contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.