apex_run_btc_gateAdvisory market-regime gate: returns ALLOW or BLOCK plus move_pct from current vs reference price and a drop threshold. Pure calculation, DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required, no orders, no wallet/account access. Not trading advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| current_price | Yes | ||
| threshold_pct | No | ||
| reference_price | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though readOnlyHint is true, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: 'Pure calculation, DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required, no orders, no wallet/account access' and 'Not trading advice'. It also discloses the return structure (ALLOW/BLOCK + move_pct), which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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?
The description is three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds safety/disclaimers in a structured way. Every sentence adds value.
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 pure calculation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and safety profile. It lacks detail on default behavior when threshold_pct is omitted, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most contexts.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the roles of current_price and reference_price ('current vs reference price') and threshold_pct ('drop threshold'). However, it does not specify that threshold_pct is optional or detail the exact calculation, leaving some semantic gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's function as an advisory market-regime gate that returns ALLOW or BLOCK plus move_pct based on current vs reference price and a drop threshold. It uses a specific verb ('returns'), names the resource ('BTC regime gate'), and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its advisory and calculation-only nature.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when an advisory, pure-calculation gate is needed—and explicitly states exclusions ('no orders, no wallet/account access'). However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly say 'use this instead of X', so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions provide sufficient boundaries. Some run_* analytics tools (e.g., deflated_sharpe vs empyrical_metrics) could be conceptually confused, but their specific inputs and outputs minimize ambiguity.
All tools share the apex_ prefix, and the verb_noun pattern is consistent (get, query, run, submit). The 'agent_' subgroup within run tools introduces a minor irregularity, but it remains readily comprehensible.
With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy side, falling into the 16-25 range. Many run_* tools are similar in nature (pure calculations), but each appears to serve a specific purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The server name implies a card store, yet the tool surface only supports reading and querying cards, with no create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap that prevents full lifecycle management, though the analytics side is fairly comprehensive.