top_volume_fullReturn the top cryptocurrencies ranked by 24h total volume denominated in a quote symbol (tsym); paginates with page parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| tsym | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 20,
+ "tsym": "USD"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 50,
+ "page": 1,
+ "tsym": "EUR"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Top coins by trading volume",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds value by specifying the 24-hour volume timeframe and pagination behavior, which are not covered by annotations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and key parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and two of three parameters, but lacks detail on pagination size or sorting order. Still, it is adequate for a read-only listing tool.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'tsym' as a quote symbol and 'page' for pagination, but the 'limit' parameter is left unexplained. This partial coverage leaves a gap.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return', the resource 'top cryptocurrencies', and the key parameter 'tsym' for quote denomination. It also mentions ranking by 24h total volume and pagination, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'top_market_cap' and 'top_pairs'.
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 implies usage for volume-ranked data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'top_market_cap' or 'top_pairs'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
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.