CoinGlass MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the description doesn't need to repeat those safety aspects. However, it adds valuable context about what liquidation data represents ('Liquidations occur when a trader's position is forcibly closed...') and its analytical significance ('Large liquidation clusters can indicate support/resistance'), which helps the agent understand the data's meaning beyond just retrieval.

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, explanatory context, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value, though the explanatory paragraph about liquidations could be slightly more concise. The examples are particularly effective for showing usage patterns.

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 comprehensive annotations (read-only, non-destructive, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the data represents and gives usage examples, which complements the structured metadata well for this data retrieval tool.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it provides example configurations that illustrate how parameters combine, but doesn't explain parameter meanings or relationships that aren't 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 as 'Get liquidation history data' with a brief explanation of what liquidations are. It specifies the resource (liquidation history) and verb (get), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'coinglass_liq_heatmap' or 'coinglass_liq_orders' that also handle liquidation data.

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 usage context through examples that show when to use different action values (e.g., 'BTC liquidations: action="aggregated", symbol="BTC"'). It effectively demonstrates how to parameterize the tool for different scenarios, though it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool over sibling liquidation tools.

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