List currencies supported in unified account.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "cex_unified_list_unified_currencies"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | No | Currency name to filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'unified account' scoping, but says nothing about pagination, return format, or auth requirements beyond that.
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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the list action and scope. Appropriate size for a simple read-only listing tool.
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 and no annotations explaining what is returned. For a listing endpoint whose main value is its return contents, the description does not indicate the response shape or pagination, though the tool is otherwise simple.
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 optional currency filter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so baseline 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?
States a verb (list) and resource (currencies supported in unified account), which is specific enough in isolation. But it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like cex_earn_list_uni_currencies, cex_mcl_list_multi_collateral_currencies, or cex_spot_list_currencies; an agent must infer the difference from the name prefix alone.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. With dozens of currency-listing siblings, the description provides no routing signal to help an agent choose this tool over the others.
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.