CoinGlass MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by explaining the tool's utility ('understanding available options and current limits') and providing examples of specific actions, which helps the agent understand the scope and practical applications beyond the basic safety hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose statement, usage context, and examples. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, and examples, aligning well with the structured data without needing to explain return values or behavioral details already provided elsewhere.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'action' parameter fully documented via enum and descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by listing examples (e.g., 'List exchanges: action="exchanges"'), but this mostly repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'Get CoinGlass configuration and metadata' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CoinGlass configuration and metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on configuration/metadata rather than market data, funding, or other specific metrics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with each sibling tool.

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 clear context for usage: 'Useful for understanding available options and current limits.' It implies when to use this tool (for configuration/metadata queries) versus alternatives (siblings focused on market data, funding, etc.), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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