Skip to main content
Glama

Coingecko

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit (5 per day), the free/quota-free nature, the claim_token return behavior and follow-up mechanism, and that reports are read daily and influence roadmap. This is exceptional transparency beyond the schema/annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than typical but nearly every sentence adds distinct information. It could be tightened by dropping the motivational sentence about roadmap impact, and the rate limit/quota-free info could be condensed, but it remains well-structured and front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the token-based follow-up and the behavioral contract (account-optional, rate limit, scope). All four parameters are covered in both schema and description, and the nuanced use case (reporting issues about Pipeworx tools vs. other servers) is thoroughly addressed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable usage nuance: the claim_token reuse pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and a strong instruction to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting user prompts. This enhances but does not fully replace schema detail.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and immediately defines the tool's scope: broken, missing, or needs-to-exist items. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is only for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, ruling out other MCP servers.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each feedback type (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and a clear when-not-to-use exclusion for tools from other MCP servers. It also provides a rule of thumb for identifying Pipeworx tools, making usage unambiguous.

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