CoinGlass MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by explaining the data's purpose ('gauging sentiment among margin traders'), which is useful context beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations (e.g., it doesn't imply destructive actions), and it adds behavioral insight without redundancy. However, it doesn't detail rate limits or specific auth needs, so it's not a full 5.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clarifying sentence and examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding useful information without waste. It's structured for quick comprehension and avoids unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects), rich annotations (covering read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and why, with examples. However, it could be more explicit about sibling differentiation or edge cases, but for this context, it's sufficient.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'symbol' parameter clearly documented. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema: it provides examples ('BTC', 'ETH') that reinforce the schema's description, but doesn't explain format constraints or additional meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the examples offer slight enhancement without significant added value.

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's purpose: 'Get Bitfinex margin long/short data' and 'Shows margin positions on Bitfinex exchange.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Bitfinex margin long/short data'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'coinglass_funding_current' or 'coinglass_spot' by focusing on margin positions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'coinglass_long_short' (which might be similar), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implied usage context: 'Useful for gauging sentiment among margin traders' and examples for BTC and ETH. This gives a general idea of when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., vs. 'coinglass_long_short'). No exclusions or clear comparisons are provided, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.