Crypto market overview — prices and stats for major tracked tokens.
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_market_overview"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the core behavior—returning prices and stats for major tracked tokens—and implies a read-only market snapshot, which is the main behavioral trait for this kind of tool. However, it does not clarify data recency, currency, exact token coverage, or that no state is modified, and with no annotations the description carries the full transparency burden.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and adds specifics with a clean em-dash construction. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of structured schema details.
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 zero-parameter tool the description is largely sufficient to make the call, but it does not explain the output format, what 'stats' include, or which tokens count as 'major tracked.' Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a sentence describing expected return fields would make it more complete.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing about parameters for the description to explain; the baseline 4 applies. The description does not invent irrelevant configuration details and introduces no parameter ambiguity.
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 identifies a specific resource ('crypto market overview') and its content ('prices and stats for major tracked tokens'), and the tool name supplies the 'get' verb. It is distinguishable from specialized siblings like get_whale_movements or get_trading_signals, though sibling differentiation is not explicit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are mentioned. The wording only implies it is the broad-market fallback, leaving an agent to infer selection criteria from sibling names rather than from the description.
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.