[COST: ] Get Solana price via CoinGecko
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_crypto_sol"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Get Solana price' without disclosing rate limits, latency, free usage, or any side effects. Though it is clearly a read-only operation, the description does not state this or other behavioral traits, leaving the agent to assume.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It concisely conveys the purpose and source without waste, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, trivial action), the description is adequate. It specifies the resource and source. The output schema exists, so return values are not required to be explained. However, it does not mention units (e.g., USD) or offer any caveats, but for such a common lookup this is acceptable.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.
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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Solana price'), and the source ('CoinGecko'), which distinguishes it from sibling crypto price tools like get_crypto_eth and get_crypto_doge. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 it is used when a Solana price is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide conditions for when not to use it (e.g., 'for other cryptos use get_crypto_*'). Since the tool is trivial and the context is obvious, some guidance is implied but not stated.
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.