get_top_gainers
Top 24h gainers (api_key required).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| api_key | No | Your API key from register() |
Top 24h gainers (api_key required).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| api_key | No | Your API key from register() |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional — for billing"New value: +"Your API key from register()"Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional — for billing"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "api_key"
-]New value: +[]Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionRemoved value: -"Your API key"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only mentions api_key requirement. No mention of read-only nature, rate limits, or response behavior. Minimal transparency.
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?
Very concise single sentence. Information is front-loaded. The parentheses hide 'api_key required' but overall efficient.
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?
No output schema exists. Description fails to describe return format or structure. For a tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.
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 50% (only api_key has a description). Description adds 'api_key required' which is useful but contradicts schema (required array empty). Does not explain 'limit' parameter beyond default. Slight contradiction noted.
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?
Description clearly states it returns 'Top 24h gainers', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_top_losers and get_top_volume. However, it does not specify if gainers are by percentage or absolute value, slightly reducing clarity.
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 such as get_top or get_trending. The only note is 'api_key required', which is a prerequisite but does not help with selection among siblings.
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.