market-analysisGet detailed market analysis for a cryptocurrency including the top 5 exchanges by volume, price per exchange, and volume distribution percentages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Cryptocurrency symbol or name (e.g. BTC or Bitcoin) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| priceUsd | Yes | ||
| vwap24Hr | Yes | ||
| topMarkets | Yes | ||
| volumeUsd24Hr | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / properties / volumeUsd24Hr / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Output schema / properties / volumeUsd24Hr / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / vwap24Hr / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Output schema / properties / vwap24Hr / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns the top 5 exchanges and volume distribution, which is useful but not a major behavioral disclosure (e.g., no mention of pagination, rate limits, or authentication). Given the annotations, the added context is modest, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose and its key output components. There is no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, making it optimally concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool is simple (single parameter) and has a provided output schema, so the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers the core purpose and specific data points. While it does not explicitly mention limitations or alternative routing, given the output schema and simple interface, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The schema provides a complete description for the only parameter 'symbol' ('Cryptocurrency symbol or name (e.g. BTC or Bitcoin)'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but none are needed given the schema's clarity. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no extra enrichment is provided.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('market analysis for a cryptocurrency'), and enumerates the exact output components: top 5 exchanges by volume, price per exchange, and volume distribution percentages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like market-exchanges (which likely lists exchanges) or analysis-technical (technical indicators), making the purpose unmistakable.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its numerous siblings (e.g., market-exchanges, analysis-historical). The description only implies that it is for obtaining exchange-level market breakdowns, but does not state exclusions or alternatives. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.
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.