Skip to main content
Glama

Coingecko

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx — Grounded

ask_pipeworx_grounded
Read-onlyIdempotent

Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. Same routing as ask_pipeworx — picks the right tool from 5,801 across 1517 sources, fills arguments, fetches the data — then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains. Returns {answer, evidence (verbatim quote), confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} on success, OR an explicit refusal {answer:null, refusal_reason:"not_in_source"|"no_tool_match"|"tool_error"|"data_truncated"|"llm_error"} when the data doesn't directly answer. Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx — prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the internal routing behavior, that it extracts answers only from tool results, returns verbatim evidence, and can return explicit refusals with enumerated reasons. This gives a clear model of side effects and failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact yet information-dense, with key behavioral facts front-loaded and no redundant filler. Each sentence adds distinct value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract, refusal modes, typical use cases, and comparison to the sibling ask_pipeworx. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters and lists aliases; the description adds a natural-language question explanation but no additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema already provides full coverage.

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 it is a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, distinguishing it from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing grounded extraction and refusal behavior. The verb 'ask' and resource 'pipeworx' are explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use it: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and when not to: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' This provides direct selection guidance relative to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Coingecko toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or have heavily overlapping responsibilities (ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_fill_risk, and ai_visibility_check / scan_competitor_ai_presence). The many meta/entry-point tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) also blur the boundary between discovery and execution.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix imperative verb-first patterns (get_coin, search_coins, validate_claim) with noun-phrase labels (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edge_tracker) and inconsistent prefixes. Snake_case is consistent, but the naming grammar and verb styles are not.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well past the comfortable range, and the count feels inflated by duplicate routing modes, overlapping polymarket scanners, and generic memory/meta utilities. A server nominally named Coingecko carries only 4 crypto tools while the overwhelming majority belong to unrelated domains.

Completeness2/5

As a CoinGecko server, the surface is severely incomplete: search/get/market/trending exist but historical prices, OHLC, exchanges, categories, and coin details are missing. As a broader data/prediction-market utility it is more expansive, but the lack of a coherent domain makes coverage impossible to assess as a single product.

Resources