Crypto News Sentiment (x402)

Archive Coverage

archive_coverage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check hourly sentiment archive coverage per coin before requesting history: see first/latest readings, row counts, missing hours, and 7-day headline coverage to choose symbols with data.

Instructions

Free: what the hourly sentiment archive holds (GET /archive). No wallet
needed.

Per symbol: first and latest reading, row counts, missing hours, and
coverage_7d_pct, the share of the last 7 days' logged hours that had at
least one matching headline (with hours_with_headlines_7d and
hours_logged_7d). Check it before get_hourly_history to pick a symbol and
range with data: low-coverage coins often get no_headlines_in_range from
get_hourly_history or "insufficient recent news" from crypto_sentiment,
both refused and not charged.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses that the call is free, needs no wallet, and that downstream failures are 'refused and not charged'. These are meaningful auth, cost, and error-behavior details that annotations do not provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short paragraphs with no filler. It front-loads the free/no-wallet constraint and then immediately explains what the coverage report contains and why to call it.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: cost, required access, output metrics, and the recommended call ordering relative to get_hourly_history and crypto_sentiment.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description does add output-field meaning such as coverage_7d_pct, but the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific resource and operation: 'what the hourly sentiment archive holds (GET /archive)'. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by positioning it as a coverage check before get_hourly_history.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Check it before get_hourly_history to pick a symbol and range with data'. It also explains the consequences of skipping this check, naming no_headlines_in_range from get_hourly_history and 'insufficient recent news' from crypto_sentiment.

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

Deploy Server