Get Simple Earn currency details.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"currency": "<currency>"
},
"name": "cex_earn_get_uni_currency"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | Yes | Currency name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, not even what the returned 'details' contain or how unknown currencies behave.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than maximally informative.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the essentials are present, and no output schema exists so return-value explanation is not required. Still, the vague term 'details' leaves the agent unsure what fields come back or how this differs from the list sibling.
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 description coverage is 100% with a single required 'currency' parameter (example 'btc'), so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no format, case-sensitivity, or validation detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Simple Earn currency details'), so an agent knows it retrieves data for a single earn currency. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling cex_earn_list_uni_currencies, leaving the singular-vs-collection distinction to inference.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this tool over cex_earn_list_uni_currencies when a single currency's details are needed, nor what prerequisites exist.
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.