CoinGlass MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds value by explaining the meaning of Grayscale premium/discount (bullish/bearish sentiment), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or data freshness.

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 concise, with no wasted words. It starts with the core purpose, adds explanatory context, and provides actionable examples. Each sentence adds value, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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, rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, provides usage context with examples, and adds semantic meaning to the data, compensating well for any gaps without needing to detail return values or technical behaviors.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds semantic context by explaining what Grayscale data represents and providing examples that illustrate parameter combinations (e.g., action='premium', fund='GBTC', range='90d'). This enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 Grayscale fund data.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Grayscale fund data'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on Grayscale-specific data, unlike other tools for funding rates, market data, or options. The examples further clarify the scope.

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 the tool by explaining the significance of Grayscale premium/discount as an institutional sentiment indicator. It includes examples that illustrate usage scenarios (e.g., action='holdings' or 'premium'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as for non-Grayscale ETF data.

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