Live USD prices and 24-hour changes from CoinGecko. Pass tickers as a comma-separated string, for example BTC,ETH,SOL. CoinGecko ids such as bitcoin also work. Free, no payment.
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": "get_price"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | No | BTC,ETH |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it names the upstream source (CoinGecko), the currency (USD), the data freshness dimension (24-hour changes), and that it is free with no payment/API key. It omits rate limits, failure behavior for unknown tickers, and anything about response shape.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by input format and cost. Every sentence adds information; nothing is filler.
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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers source, format, and auth cost adequately. The remaining gap is what the response looks like and how invalid or unknown tickers are handled, which an agent would otherwise need to discover at call time.
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 0% and the sole parameter carries only a name and default, so the description must compensate — and it does, specifying comma-separated string syntax, giving a concrete example ('BTC,ETH,SOL'), and noting that CoinGecko ids such as 'bitcoin' are also accepted.
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 specific resource and payload: 'Live USD prices and 24-hour changes from CoinGecko.' That resource is clearly separable from the sibling tools (fear_greed, funding_rates, top_movers, rug_risk), so an agent can identify it without inspecting the schema.
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 tells you how to call it (comma-separated tickers) and that CoinGecko ids are accepted, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, e.g., versus top_movers or market_brief. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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.