OHLC chart data: 1d, 7d, 30d, 90d candlesticks. $0.01.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"api_key": "<api_key>"
},
"name": "get_ohlc"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | No | usd | |
| coin | No | bitcoin | |
| days | No | ||
| api_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions a cost of $0.01, which is not a standard behavioral trait. It does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects.
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 short and front-loaded with the main function, but it omits important details about parameters and outputs, making it less informative than it could be.
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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, candle intervals, or provide enough context for correct invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails entirely. It mentions time durations but does not link them to the 'days' parameter, and does not explain 'coin' or 'vs' parameters at all.
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 that the tool provides OHLC chart data for durations 1d, 7d, 30d, 90d. However, it does not explicitly mention the coin and currency pair, leaving some gap in identifying the resource.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price or get_price_summary. The description lacks any usage context or when-not-to-use advice.
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.