CoinGlass MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Data is updated frequently (30 second cache)' provides crucial timing information. Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and idempotency, but the description enhances this with real-time characteristics. 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 efficiently structured: purpose statement, key metrics, behavioral note, parameter requirement, and concrete examples. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 presence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral characteristics, and examples without needing to explain return values.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value: it mentions 'coins_summary requires symbol parameter' which is already in the schema, and provides examples that illustrate parameter usage. This meets the baseline of 3 when 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: 'Get real-time market data summaries from CoinGlass' with specific metrics listed (price, open interest, volume, funding rates). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on aggregated market metrics rather than specialized data like funding history or liquidation heatmaps. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all 23 sibling tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use specific actions: 'coins_summary requires symbol parameter' with examples showing different use cases (BTC metrics, all pairs, price changes). It clearly indicates parameter requirements and distinguishes between the three action types, giving the agent concrete decision criteria.

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