v1_crypto_priceCrypto spot price: Spot price for a crypto asset in a fiat/crypto quote currency. Source: Coinbase / CoinGecko. $0.005 per call · GET /v1/crypto-price
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | No | Quote currency (default USD). Example: 'USD'. | |
| symbol | Yes | Asset symbol. Example: 'BTC'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the data source (Coinbase/CoinGecko), the per-call cost, and the GET method. This is meaningful extra information for an agent deciding whether to invoke the 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source, pricing, and endpoint. Every clause provides useful information with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter lookup 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?
For a simple read-only lookup with fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It includes source, cost, and HTTP method, but it does not describe the response format; however, no output schema exists and the return value is strongly implied by 'spot price'. This is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
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%, so the parameters are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds minor semantic context by noting that the quote currency can be fiat or crypto, but it does not significantly enrich the parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a clear resource and outcome: the spot price of a crypto asset in a quote currency. It differentiates from siblings such as v1_stock_quote and v1_fx by explicitly specifying 'crypto asset' and 'coinbase / coingecko' as the source. The endpoint path reinforces the specific resource.
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 usage for crypto spot price lookups, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like v1_stock_quote or v1_fx. The word 'crypto' provides strong implicit guidance, yet no explicit exclusions or alternative conditions are 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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource or operation—geocoding, weather, DNS, VIN, stock quotes, etc.—with no meaningful overlap in purpose. Even the location- and finance-related tools are clearly separated by their descriptions.
All tools follow the same v1_<resource>[_modifier] snake_case pattern, such as v1_air_quality, v1_reverse_geocode, and v1_validate_email. Although the names are not verb-based, the convention is perfectly consistent across all 31 tools.
31 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold and creates a heavy selection burden for agents, even though the server's stated purpose is broad. Many endpoints are small single-purpose lookups that could be grouped into fewer combined tools without losing clarity.
As a general public-data utility, the set covers a wide range of common lookup categories: location, weather, finance, legal, health, business, internet, and reference data. It has minor gaps like historical financial time series or phone-number validation, but no obvious dead ends since all tools are self-contained read-only lookups.