Xynaptic Crypto Price — real-time snapshot of 6 major crypto assets (BTC, ETH, SOL, ADA, LINK, DOT) with 24h changes, breadth and top movers. USD only, agent-ready. [price: $0.010 per call, x402/USDC]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | query parameters |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / bodyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "JSON body for POST endpoints (e.g. insurance, ai-chat, production-risk)",
- "type": "object"
-}Input schema / properties / params / descriptionPrevious value: -"query parameters, e.g. {city: 'Paris', type: 'Appartement'}"New value: +"query parameters"Input schema / properties / params / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "market": {
+ "description": "example: {\"breadth\":\"3/6 up\"}",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "prices": {
+ "description": "example: {\"BTC\":{\"usd\":86000,\"chg_24h_pct\":-0.4}}",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: a fixed universe of six assets, USD-only denomination, and a per-call price of $0.010 via x402/USDC, which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to spend. However it says nothing about error behavior, freshness/latency, or response shape beyond the field list.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the asset list and returned fields, followed by the two constraint tags. Slightly dense but every clause carries information; no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description is largely responsible for return context; it does list the categories returned (prices, 24h change, breadth, top movers), which partially compensates. It still leaves the agent unsure which parameters actually exist/do anything and how this differs from the many crypto siblings.
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?
There is one optional 'params' object with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about what the params control — notably, the schema's 'market'/'prices' examples look like output fragments rather than inputs, and the description does nothing to clarify that.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('real-time snapshot of 6 major crypto assets') and enumerates the covered assets plus the values returned (24h changes, breadth, top movers). It does not name or distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as crypto-market, crypto-movers, or crypto-global, so an agent cannot automatically route between them.
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 says what the tool is but never says when to pick it over crypto-market, crypto-movers, crypto-global, or crypto-historical. Only the constraints 'USD only' and the pricing note are given; no conditions for use, no exclusions, no alternative named.
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.