Every coin T7 scores in one list, biggest first: REAL score and call, compound, conviction, payout APY, market cap, holders. Paged.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_coins"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | free 100, paid 500 a page | |
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the sort order ('biggest first') and the exact payload fields (REAL score and call, compound, conviction, payout APY, market cap, holders). It does not state that this is a read-only operation, mention tier/auth limits on page size, or describe pagination termination behavior.
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?
Tight, front-loaded, and free of filler — the field list and sort order land immediately, and 'Paged' is a compact trailing qualifier. It loses a point because dense jargon ('T7', 'REAL score and call', 'compound') is used without any gloss, which costs comprehension for the space saved.
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 annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it lists returned fields but not the response envelope — no indication of whether pagination metadata or a total count is returned, which matters for a paged tool. Adequate for a simple listing, but an agent cannot fully predict the shape of the result.
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 only 50%: limit has a description ('free 100, paid 500 a page') but offset is completely undocumented. The description's single word 'Paged' provides a hint of the paging model but does not compensate for the missing offset semantics or default limit behavior.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Every coin T7 scores in one list, biggest first,' and enumerates the returned metrics. An agent can tell this is a ranked list rather than the single-coin detail of the sibling get_coin, though the sibling is never named outright.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_coin, get_top, or get_launches — all plausible alternatives in the sibling set. 'Paged' weakly implies iterative use, but no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites 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.