get_market_cap
Get the market capitalization for a specific asset by symbol.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Asset symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH, SOL) |
Get the market capitalization for a specific asset by symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Asset symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH, SOL) |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds no additional behavioral traits, but does not contradict annotations. With annotations covering safety, a score of 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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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 simple getter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. It could benefit from mentioning the return format, but it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description's phrase 'by symbol' echoes the schema's description. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'market capitalization', and the constraint 'by symbol'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_market_caps' which returns multiple entries.
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 that it is for a single asset by symbol, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. This is adequate given the sibling tools list.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: asset details, summaries (current and historical), market cap, market summary, price history, surging/trending assets, and listing assets/market caps. No overlaps.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' for specific queries and 'list_' for enumerations. No mixing of conventions.
10 tools is well-scoped for a market data server, covering all essential read operations without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers all common market data needs: asset details, summaries, market cap, price history, trending/surging assets, and full listings. No critical gaps for a read-only data server.