CoinGlass MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about indicator-specific behaviors (e.g., BTC-only limitations, symbol/exchange requirements for borrow_rate, and examples of action usage), which enhances understanding beyond 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 with a clear purpose statement, bullet points for key indicators, and practical examples. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff, though the examples could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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 with 6 parameters, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage nuances, and behavioral context without needing to explain return values or repeat structured information.

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 all parameters. The description adds some semantic context by explaining that 'Most indicators are BTC-only' and 'borrow_rate requires symbol + exchange,' but doesn't provide additional 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get market indicators and on-chain metrics' with specific examples of indicators like fear_greed, rainbow, and pi_cycle. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on indicators rather than funding, liquidation, or market data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 specific actions, such as 'Most indicators are BTC-only. rsi returns all coins. borrow_rate requires symbol + exchange.' and includes examples for different scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus sibling alternatives.

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