list_providersAll rate providers, optionally filtered by product category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, default 100 | |
| category | No | Filter to providers that offer this category |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| providers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / category / descriptionPrevious value: -"Filter to providers that offer this category (e.g. \"savings\", \"lending\")"New value: +"Filter to providers that offer this category"Input schema / properties / category / enumAdded value: +[
+ "lending",
+ "borrowing",
+ "staking",
+ "price"
+]Input schema / properties / category / descriptionAdded value: +"Filter to providers that offer this category (e.g. \"savings\", \"lending\")"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Max results, default 100"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "providers": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "categories": {
+ "description": "Categories this provider offers",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Display name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "description": "Stable identifier (e.g. `nexo`)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "providers"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not add behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive). There is no mention of additional traits like pagination or result set limits beyond the schema.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word serves a purpose, stating the main function and the optional filter.
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 simple list tool with only two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description is sufficient. It could be improved by noting the default limit, but the schema already provides that.
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 100% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the filter capability, so it meets the baseline without improvement.
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 the action 'list' and the resource 'rate providers', and mentions optional filtering by product category. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on rates or coins rather than providers.
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?
The description implies when to use: to list rate providers with an optional category filter. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, the context of sibling names makes the usage 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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of cryptocurrency data: coin metadata, prices, rates (current, historical, changes), earn products, market summaries, stablecoin analysis, and symbol resolution. The detailed descriptions clearly differentiate even similar tools like get_price and get_price_by_symbol, or get_rates and list_earn_products.
All names use snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verb_noun (get_coin, list_coins, resolve_symbol), some are noun_noun (coin_history, fear_greed_index, market_summary), and some include 'by' for parameters. This mix is readable but could be more consistent.
With 21 tools, the server covers a broad domain of cryptocurrency data without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is appropriate for a comprehensive data API.
The tool set covers nearly all expected operations for a crypto data server: coin listing, metadata, prices, historical data, rates, yield products, market stats, top coins, stablecoin analysis, and symbol resolution. No obvious gaps are present for the stated focus on price, rate, and yield data.