Get the top-rated cryptocurrencies by Martingale score. Optionally filter by minimum Startingale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results. Default: 10, Max: 20 | |
| min_startingale | No | Minimum Startingale to include. Default: 0 |
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 mark readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read. The description adds behavioral context about ranking by Martingale score and optional filtering by minimum Startingale. 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?
Two concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional filter stated second. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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 tool with only two optional parameters, the description covers the main functionality and filter. However, it does not mention the limit parameter (though schema covers it) or describe the output shape, which would be useful given no output schema. Overall adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The schema provides full coverage of both parameters with descriptions and defaults (100%), so the description adds no new parameter semantics. The phrase 'Optionally filter by minimum Startingale' merely restates the optional nature already visible in 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 it retrieves top cryptocurrencies ranked by Martingale score. The specific verb 'Get' and resource 'cryptocurrencies' distinguish it from siblings like list_top_stocks. The optional filter adds further clarity about its scope.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crypto_overview or search_instruments. The description implies usage through its purpose but does not name exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.