CoinGlass MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about what Open Interest represents and its market interpretation (bullish/bearish signals), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. With comprehensive annotations, this adds moderate value.

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 purpose statement, conceptual explanation, parameter guidance, and examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the conceptual explanation of Open Interest interpretation could be considered slightly verbose for a pure tool description.

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 comprehensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), 100% schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It explains the tool's purpose, usage patterns, and includes practical examples without needing to cover 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning required params by action and providing examples, but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'Open Interest OHLC history', specifying it's for historical data. It distinguishes from siblings like coinglass_oi_distribution (distribution data) and coinglass_funding_history (funding rate history) by focusing on OHLC format open interest history.

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 different actions with concrete examples: 'pair' for single exchange pairs, 'aggregated' for all exchanges combined, and other actions for specific margin types. It clearly distinguishes usage scenarios with parameter requirements.

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