stablecoin_indexRanked stablecoin leaderboard with stability scores, peg deviation, and market cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 50 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stablecoins | Yes | Ranked stablecoin leaderboard |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "stablecoins": {
+ "description": "Ranked stablecoin leaderboard",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "marketCap": {
+ "description": "Market cap in USD",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Human-readable name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "pegDeviation": {
+ "description": "Current peg deviation from target (typically $1.00) in basis points",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "stabilityScore": {
+ "description": "Stability score 0-100, higher is more stable",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "symbol": {
+ "description": "Stablecoin symbol (e.g. `usdc`)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "symbol",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "stablecoins"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context on returned data (stability scores, peg deviation, market cap) but does not go beyond those annotations to disclose behaviors like pagination or update frequency.
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?
Single sentence with no extraneous information. Every word serves a clear purpose.
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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the purpose and key output fields. No additional context needed.
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% with a single limit parameter described as 'Default 50'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond that, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Title and description clearly state it provides a ranked leaderboard of stablecoins with stability scores, peg deviation, and market cap. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stablecoin_peg_stability which may focus on individual peg analysis.
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 usage for obtaining a ranked overview of stablecoins but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., stablecoin_peg_stability) or when not to use it.
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.