Calculates net flow, volume, and last activity per watched address from transfer rows, handling both crypto transfers and equity filings.
Net flow, volume and last activity per watched address, from transfers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transfers | Yes | ||
| watchlist | Yes | ||
| asset_class | Yes | Which market answers. Required: this tool has an implementation for each of these and no symbol parameter to infer one from. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: no auth requirements, no note that output is per-address keyed, no disclosure that a single 13F quarter yields no institutional flow, and no hint that equity rows are filings rather than transfers. All that context lives in the schema docstring, not the tool description.
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?
A single tight sentence with the core noun (net flow/volume/last activity) and data source front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness is arguably under-specification rather than true economy.
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?
A three-parameter, three-required structural tool with no annotations and no output schema, spanning two asset classes whose input shapes differ semantically. The one-sentence description is nowhere near enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without reading the schema docstring, and it never mentions the response shape.
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 only 33%, and the top-level description adds nothing about what shape a transfer row or watchlist entry must take. The critical facts — that a row may be a crypto transfer or a Form 4/13F filing, and that watchlist may be a map, bare list, or nested wrapper — appear only in the schema's own docstring, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a concrete computation and its output dimensions ("Net flow, volume and last activity per watched address, from transfers"), so an agent knows this is an aggregation over a transfer/filing set rather than a raw fetch. It doesn't explicitly contrast with lookalike siblings such as label-transfers or whale-alerts, which keeps it off a 5.
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?
"from transfers" weakly implies you must supply rows and a watchlist, but there is no statement of when to pick this over whale-alerts, label-transfers, or query, and no mention that asset_class is required to disambiguate the two markets. Nothing tells the agent when NOT to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.