Retrieve recent crypto events with measured 5-minute, 1-hour, and 24-hour price reactions, filtered by coin or topic to analyze market impact.
Recent published crypto events and measured 5m/1h/24h price reactions. Optional canonical coin id and topic filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| topic | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'recent' and 'published' (implying freshness/scoping) and discloses the reaction horizons measured, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how far back 'recent' reaches — meaningful gaps for a feed-style tool.
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 tight sentences with the returned payload front-loaded ahead of the optional filters. Nothing is wasted, though the filter clause could be a bit more informative without adding length.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description does the work of describing the return payload (events plus 5m/1h/24h reactions), which is the key reader need here. Remaining gaps — limit behavior, recency horizon, ordering — keep it short of complete.
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 must compensate. It does add real meaning for two parameters: 'coin' is clarified as a canonical coin id, and 'topic' is described as a filter; however, 'limit' (default 20, max 100) is never mentioned and the topic enum values are not explained, so compensation is only partial.
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 specific resource (recent published crypto events) and the distinctive payload (measured 5m/1h/24h price reactions), which clearly separates it from a plain coin-data sibling like get_coin. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb, but the noun phrase plus 'recent' leaves no real ambiguity about what the tool returns.
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 call this versus get_coin, or on when not to call it. 'Recent' implies a recency window but gives no threshold, and the only sibling is never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.