CoinGlass MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive operations, the description clarifies the three specific data types returned (rates, accumulated, arbitrage) and provides concrete examples of usage patterns. This enhances understanding of what the tool actually returns and how to use it.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points explaining the three data types and concrete examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the bullet points could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 moderate complexity, comprehensive annotations, complete schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains what data types are available and gives usage examples, which complements the structured data well. The main gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by repeating the three action options in bullet points and providing usage examples, but doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 current funding rate data across exchanges.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current funding rate data'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'coinglass_funding_history' beyond the 'current' vs 'history' distinction in their names.

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 guidance through examples that show how to use different actions, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'coinglass_funding_history' for historical data or other sibling tools. The examples help illustrate parameter usage but don't provide comparative context.

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