top_coinsTop N coins ordered by market capitalisation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of coins, default 100 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coins | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "coins": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Canonical coin ID (e.g. `bitcoin`)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "marketCap": {
+ "description": "Market cap in USD",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Human-readable name (e.g. `Bitcoin`)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "price": {
+ "description": "Current spot price in USD",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "rank": {
+ "description": "Market cap rank (1 = largest)",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "symbol": {
+ "description": "Trading symbol (e.g. `btc`)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "symbol",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "coins"
+ ],
+ "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 that results are ordered by market capitalisation, but does not elaborate on dynamic nature or pagination. Provides some additional behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 concise with one sentence. It is efficient but could benefit from slight elaboration without being verbose.
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 parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: ordering by market cap and limiting. It lacks mention of return format or real-time nature, but output schema likely covers 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 describes the limit parameter. The description does not add any extra semantics about the parameter beyond what is in the schema.
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 it returns top coins ordered by market capitalisation. It uses a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_coins or top_movers.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about when this tool is appropriate compared to other coin-listing tools.
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.