Check available crypto telemetry coverage, supported token pairs, and date boundaries; optionally filter by a specific pair to verify data availability.
Check data coverage, supported pairs, and date boundaries for crypto telemetry
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pair | No | Optional token pair filter (e.g. AERO/USD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly signals a read-only metadata check and describes what categories of information are returned, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, permissions, or output format.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the three deliverables are listed compactly and the read-check framing comes first.
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 and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the return categories (coverage, supported pairs, date boundaries), which compensates for the missing output documentation. Only output shape/format details remain unspecified for this simple metadata lookup.
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 100%, with the single optional 'pair' parameter already documented in the schema (with an example). The description only implies that coverage can be scoped to pairs, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates concrete resources ('data coverage, supported pairs, and date boundaries'), making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling crypto tools like crypto_spread_candles or crypto_dislocations, which prevents 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?
The description implies a discovery/pre-flight role (checking what data exists before querying), but never states when to use this versus the other crypto tools or when it should be skipped. Usage is inferred rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.