CoinGlass MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by explaining that 'The bid/ask ratio can indicate buying or selling pressure,' which provides insight into the tool's analytical utility beyond just data retrieval. It doesn't contradict annotations, and while it could mention rate limits or auth needs, it adds meaningful behavioral insight.

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 explanatory context and practical examples. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains significance, and the examples illustrate usage. There's no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (7 parameters, multiple actions) and rich annotations (read-only, etc.), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage hints, and examples. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could be more complete by addressing when to use this over sibling tools or detailing parameter interactions more explicitly.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., action types, symbol usage, interval options). The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions 'pair_depth' and 'coin_depth' in examples but doesn't explain their differences or other parameters like 'interval' or 'range' in more detail. 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 order book depth history' and 'Shows historical bid/ask depth at various price levels.' It specifies the resource (order book depth history) and the action (get/show). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'coinglass_ob_large_orders' or 'coinglass_liq_heatmap' that might also relate to order book data, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implied usage through examples (e.g., 'BTC depth on Binance' vs. 'Aggregated BTC depth'), which helps understand when to use different actions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., vs. 'coinglass_ob_large_orders' for large orders or 'coinglass_liq_heatmap' for liquidity heatmaps), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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