CoinGlass MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), but the description adds valuable context: it specifies the tool returns 'recent liquidation orders as they happen' (implying a streaming or near-real-time behavior), notes a plan requirement, and provides usage examples. This enhances understanding beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, a note on requirements, and concise examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (read-only, idempotent, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, and examples, leaving detailed parameter and output information to the structured fields.

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 (symbol, side, limit). The description adds minimal semantics through examples (e.g., 'BTC longs only'), but does not provide additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies, aligning with the baseline for high 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 with specific verbs ('Get real-time liquidation orders stream') and resource ('liquidation orders'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'coinglass_liq_heatmap' and 'coinglass_liq_history' by emphasizing real-time streaming rather than historical or aggregated 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 context for when to use this tool ('monitoring market stress and potential cascade liquidations') and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Standard+ plan'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as when historical data is needed instead.

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