The coins the most T7 signal families agree on now (the TOP 10), with market cap, 24 h change, holders, liquidity.
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_top"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields (market cap, 24h change, holders, liquidity) and the TOP 10 cap, and a 'get' prefix implies a read, but nothing is said about freshness/latency, rate limits, or whether the list can be empty.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the selection criterion, then lists the payload fields. It wastes no words, though the unexplained 'T7' token slightly reduces immediate comprehension.
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?
With zero params and no output schema, the description does the needed work by naming four return fields and the TOP 10 limit. It falls short only on the ranking semantics and the meaning of T7 consensus, which an agent would have to infer.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool takes no filtering input, though it does not state that the range/scope is fixed.
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 names a specific resource and selection criterion (coins that the most T7 signal families agree on, capped at TOP 10), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly separates itself from get_coin (single coin) and get_signals (raw signals), though it never explicitly contrasts them and leaves the 'T7 signal families' jargon undefined.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives (get_coin, get_signals). The word 'now' hints at real-time usage but the agent gets nothing about when this is preferable to fetching signals or a single coin directly.
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.