True Value Rankings

Compare Coins

compare_coins

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free. Compares 2 to 5 cryptocurrencies on TVR Score, rank, valuation, TVR Estimated Value, fair value gap, and all 8 metric scores side by side. Identifies the largest scoring difference. Accepts tickers or names. Data from True Value Rankings (truevaluerankings.com).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coins`	Yes	Array of 2-5 cryptocurrency tickers or names to compare (e.g., ["BTC", "Ethereum", "SOL"])

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	false on a normal answer, or an error message
`status`	No	Present when the request could not be answered as asked, for example not_available
`context`	No	Standing context about TVR and how to read its outputs
`summary`	No	Plain-language summary of the answer
`requested`	No	What was asked for, when it could not be resolved
`comparison`	No	Per-coin scores, ranks and valuations
`disclaimer`	No	Model-derived assessment, not investment advice
`learn_more`	No	Links for more detail
`attribution`	No	Required attribution text
`data_sources`	No	Where the numbers come from
`coins_compared`	No
`key_difference`	No	The largest gap between the compared coins
`metric_comparison`	No	Metric-by-metric table
`total_coins_evaluated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "attribution": {
+      "description": "Required attribution text",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "coins_compared": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "comparison": {
+      "description": "Per-coin scores, ranks and valuations"
+    },
+    "context": {
+      "description": "Standing context about TVR and how to read its outputs"
+    },
+    "data_sources": {
+      "description": "Where the numbers come from"
+    },
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "description": "Model-derived assessment, not investment advice",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "false on a normal answer, or an error message"
+    },
+    "key_difference": {
+      "description": "The largest gap between the compared coins"
+    },
+    "learn_more": {
+      "description": "Links for more detail"
+    },
+    "metric_comparison": {
+      "description": "Metric-by-metric table"
+    },
+    "requested": {
+      "description": "What was asked for, when it could not be resolved",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Present when the request could not be answered as asked, for example not_available",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "Plain-language summary of the answer",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "total_coins_evaluated": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / coins / description

Previous value: -"Array of 2-5 cryptocurrency ticker symbols to compare (e.g., [\"BTC\", \"ETH\", \"SOL\"])"New value: +"Array of 2-5 cryptocurrency tickers or names to compare (e.g., [\"BTC\", \"Ethereum\", \"SOL\"])"

First observedMar 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior allowing a low bar. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the tool is free, reports the largest scoring difference, and sources data from True Value Rankings. It does not mention failure handling for invalid ticker names, but this is a minor gap given the annotations and output schema.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the operative purpose appears immediately, followed by distinctive outputs minute.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple single-parameter schema, full parameter coverage, read-only annotations, and an output schema, no critical information is missing. The description explains what is compared, what insight is produced, accepted inputs, and data provenance, making it complete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already gives 100% coverage of the only parameter, including constraints and an example. The description restates 'tickers or names' and the 2-5 limit but does not add new parameter-specific details such as case sensitivity, partial-name matching, or behavior with duplicates. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Compares', names the resource ('cryptocurrencies'), and enumerates the exact fields compared (TVR Score, rank, valuation, fair value gap, all 8 metric scores). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling single-tool getters like get_tvr_score or get_full_breakdown.

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?

It provides clear context: use this when comparing 2 to 5 cryptocurrencies, and it confirms acceptable input forms ('tickers or names'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the comparison scope makes the intended usage evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All True Value Rankings 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.