CoinGlass MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operations, the description explains what the data represents (market sentiment interpretation) and provides concrete examples of parameter usage. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but with comprehensive annotations covering safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by interpretation guidance, action options, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value - no redundancy or wasted words. The bullet-point format for actions and sentiment interpretation enhances readability.

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, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It explains what the data means, how to interpret it, available actions, and includes a working example - everything needed for effective tool selection and use.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it lists the four action options and provides one example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context. 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: 'Get long/short ratio data' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('long/short ratio data'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on this specific metric rather than other crypto data types like funding rates, options, or on-chain data. The explanation of market sentiment (ratio >1 bullish, <1 bearish) further clarifies what the data represents.

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 different actions (global, top_accounts, top_positions, taker_ratio) and includes a concrete example showing exchange, pair, and action parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like coinglass_taker or coinglass_oi_history, which might provide overlapping data.

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