Get assets with the highest recent price change percentage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort order: desc (default) or asc | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (default: 10, max: 50) |
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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral burden is low. However, the description does not specify what 'recent' means (time window), which could affect agent interpretation. No contradictions with annotations.
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, clear sentence without any waste. It is front-loaded and to the point. Could be slightly improved by adding a brief usage note, but remains concise and effective.
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 with two optional parameters and no output schema. However, the description omits the crucial detail of the time period for 'recent' price change, which is necessary for correct invocation. Sibling tools like get_trending_assets are not differentiated, reducing contextual completeness.
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 both sort and limit described. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves assets with the highest recent price change percentage. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_asset (specific asset) and get_asset_summary (summary), but does not differentiate from get_trending_assets, which may overlap in purpose.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users must infer usage context from the name alone.
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.
