get_search
Search coins by name or symbol (api_key required).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | Your API key from register() |
CryptoData API
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed1 schema field changed
- changed
Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional — for billing"New value: +"Your API key from register()"
Changed2 schema fields changed
- added
Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional — for billing" - changed
Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "api_key", - "q" -]New value: +[ + "q" +]
- Added
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Only notes that api_key is required, which is already in schema. No disclosure of pagination, rate limits, or result shape. No annotations provided, so description bears full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence plus parenthetical – very concise, but lacks structure (e.g., no separate sections for parameters).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no return format description, no error handling notes. Agent cannot predict what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 50%; description does not clarify q beyond name/symbol. Contradicts schema by stating api_key required (schema marks it optional). Misleading.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool searches coins by name or symbol, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_coin (retrieves specific coin) or get_price (price data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings. Mentions api_key required but without explanation of why or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools generally have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between price history tools (get_ohlc vs get_price_summary) and meme-related tools (analyze vs scan vs trending). Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_price, set_price_alert, analyze_contract). No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count3/5
48 tools is on the higher side, but it covers a broad spectrum of crypto data (prices, DeFi, sentiment, alerts, etc.) and each tool seems justified. However, the count could be slimmed down by grouping similar functions.
Completeness4/5
Very comprehensive coverage of crypto data: prices, market stats, DeFi, sentiment, gas, alerts, portfolio, arbitrage, token analysis. Minor gaps like NFT data or direct exchange rate queries.