[Finance & Markets] Get cryptocurrency prices and market data from CoinGecko. Returns price, market cap, 24h change, volume.
Args: coins: Comma-separated coin IDs (e.g. "bitcoin,ethereum,solana") or leave empty for top coins max_results: Maximum number of coins to return (default 20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coins | No | bitcoin,ethereum | |
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds source (CoinGecko) and default behavior for empty coins. No mention of rate limits or pagination, but adequate for a read-only 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?
Concise and well-structured: one sentence for purpose and source, one for returned fields, then an Args section. No unnecessary 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?
Lists returned fields but does not specify the exact structure (e.g., list of dicts). For a simple tool with no output schema, this is mostly sufficient but could be slightly more detailed about response format.
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 0% so description carries full burden. Clearly explains coins as comma-separated IDs and max_results as max number of coins with default 20. Adds examples and context beyond 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?
Clearly states it gets cryptocurrency prices and market data from CoinGecko, listing specific fields (price, market cap, 24h change, volume). Distinguishes from siblings like finance__get_stock_data by focusing on crypto.
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?
Provides examples of how to use coins parameter (comma-separated IDs or empty for top coins) and mentions default max_results. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like crypto__crypto_prices, but context is clear.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.