Top coins by 24h trading volume. $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_top_volume"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | 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 does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements beyond schema. The cost hint ($0.01) is present but minimal.
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?
Description is extremely concise (two fragments) but lacks structure or completeness. While brevity is valued, it omits essential information about the tool.
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 no output schema and two simple parameters, the description is still insufficient. It does not clarify return format, sorting, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_top' or 'get_coin'.
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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Parameters 'limit' and 'api_key' are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their semantics.
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?
Description states it returns top coins by 24h trading volume, which is a clear resource and metric. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top' or 'get_trending', and fails to specify scope (e.g., all coins or a subset).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_top_gainers' or 'get_price_summary'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
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.