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 the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds useful context about what funding rates represent and their sentiment implications, which helps the agent understand the domain semantics. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the 'limit' parameter documented in the schema.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, domain explanation, parameter guidance, and examples. Every sentence adds value - the funding rate explanation provides necessary domain context, and the examples directly help with parameter selection. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions), the description provides good context about what funding rates are and how to use different actions. With annotations covering safety/idempotency and an output schema existing, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'coinglass_funding_current'.

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 documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between actions and parameters through the 'Required params by action' section and concrete examples, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('funding rate OHLC history'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'coinglass_funding_current' by focusing on historical data rather than current rates. The explanation of funding rates adds domain context that helps differentiate this tool's purpose.

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 when to use this tool through the 'Required params by action' section and examples, showing how different actions correspond to different parameter combinations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'coinglass_funding_current' for current rates versus historical data.

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