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. The description adds useful context about plan requirements ('Requires Professional+ plan') which isn't covered by annotations, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data formats are returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences plus an example. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the utility, the third notes plan requirements, and the example demonstrates usage. Every sentence earns its place, though the example could be slightly more concise.

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 (6 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, utility, and plan requirements. With the output schema handling return values, the description doesn't need to explain response format, making it adequately complete for this context.

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 with descriptions, enums, and defaults. The description provides an example showing parameter usage but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 with specific verbs ('Get liquidation heatmap/map visualization data') and resource ('heatmap/map'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on liquidation heatmaps and leverage distribution maps, unlike other tools for funding rates, market data, or on-chain analytics.

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 about when to use this tool ('Useful for identifying potential support/resistance and cascade zones') and includes a note about plan requirements ('Requires Professional+ plan'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for different types of data.

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