Current USD spot price and 24-hour percent change for any crypto asset by CoinGecko id. Cheap, high-volume price lookups for trading and analytics agents. ($0.001 per call, paid via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | CoinGecko asset id, e.g. bitcoin, ethereum, solana |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ts | No | ||
| usd | No | ||
| coin | No | ||
| change_24h_pct | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the data returned (current price and 24h change) and cost. No contradictions; the description reinforces the read-only nature and adds performance/cost context.
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 two short sentences: the first states the core purpose and data, the second adds cost and use case context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
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 simple read tool with one parameter, good annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: data returned, cost, and use case. It lacks mention of error handling or rate limits, but these are low priority given the tool's simplicity.
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 covers the single parameter 'coin' with a clear description and examples. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool returns 'Current USD spot price and 24-hour percent change for any crypto asset by CoinGecko id,' which is a specific verb-resource combo. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_report_coin by focusing on a simple price lookup.
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 provides context for when to use this tool: 'cheap, high-volume price lookups for trading and analytics agents' and mentions a cost of $0.001 per call. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_report_coin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
