Live crypto spot price via the CoinGecko public API. Returns the price of symbol in the requested fiat quote. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote | No | Fiat quote currency (ISO code; default: USD) | |
| symbol | Yes | Crypto ticker (e.g. BTC, ETH) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses 'read-only' and free usage, and states it uses CoinGecko public API. Lacks details on rate limits or error handling, but acceptable for a simple price tool.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.
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?
No output schema, but description hints at returning 'price of symbol in fiat'. Missing details on response format, but among sibling tools, the purpose is clear and actionable.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds context (live, via CoinGecko) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 returns 'live crypto spot price via CoinGecko' and specifies it returns price of a symbol in fiat quote. Among siblings like price_oracle_convert and price_oracle_fx_rate, this uniquely targets crypto spot prices.
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?
Mentions 'read-only' and 'price 0.0 (free)', implying it's free to use, but does not explicitly guide when to use this versus sibling tools like price_oracle_price_history for historical data.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.