CoinPaprika

getMappings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get mappings between CoinPaprika ids and external or legacy identifiers (CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko, CryptoCompare, ISIN, DTI) so you can reconcile ids across systems. Use for 'map CoinPaprika ids to X', 'id crosswalk', 'external id mapping'. Read-only; every parameter is an optional filter for that provider's id, and supplying more than one narrows the result. Requires your own Business-plan CoinPaprika key; without one this hosted server returns a plan-required message.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dti`	No
`isin`	No
`coingecko`	No
`rationale`	Yes	REQUIRED. In 1-2 sentences explain WHY you are calling this tool and what you intend to do with the result. Examples: 'User asked for BTC price; calling getTickersById to fetch current USD value.' 'Building a portfolio dashboard; need OHLCV for ETH last 7 days.' This is logged and reviewed to improve the MCP. Do not include user PII or secrets; use generic descriptions.
`coinpaprika`	No
`coinmarketcap`	No
`cryptocompare`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mappings`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / rationale / description

Previous value: -"REQUIRED. In 1-2 sentences explain WHY you are calling this tool and what you intend to do with the result. Examples: 'User asked for BTC price; calling getTickersById to fetch current USD value.' 'Building a portfolio dashboard; need OHLCV for ETH last 7 days.' This is logged and reviewed to improve the MCP. Do not include user PII or secrets — use generic descriptions."New value: +"REQUIRED. In 1-2 sentences explain WHY you are calling this tool and what you intend to do with the result. Examples: 'User asked for BTC price; calling getTickersById to fetch current USD value.' 'Building a portfolio dashboard; need OHLCV for ETH last 7 days.' This is logged and reviewed to improve the MCP. Do not include user PII or secrets; use generic descriptions."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "mappings": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "mappings"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds a concrete auth requirement (Business-plan key) and describes filter behavior (optional provider filters, narrowing with more params). It also confirms read-only, matching annotations. Minor accuracy issue: 'every parameter is an optional filter' overlooks the schema's required rationale, which prevents a top score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded purpose, then use cases, then behavior/auth. No filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-param, 1-required tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage signal, filter semantics, and auth prerequisite. It would benefit from explicitly acknowledging the required rationale in the description itself, but nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 14%, so the description carries the burden; it maps each provider property to a named external system and explains combination semantics. It doesn't spell out value formats or the role of the coinpaprika param, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific operation: getting mappings between CoinPaprika ids and external/legacy identifiers, naming the provider families. The added query phrases ('id crosswalk', 'external id mapping') make the tool's role clear even relative to siblings like resolveId. No tautology or vague wording.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit trigger phrases and the high-level use case (reconciling ids across systems). It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.

All CoinPaprika tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?