CoinGlass MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying data sources (Deribit, OKX, Binance, Bybit) and explaining concepts like 'max pain' and 'put/call ratio,' which aren't covered in annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or other operational details, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 appropriately sized, starting with the core purpose, adding explanatory context, and ending with examples. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more front-loaded by placing examples after the purpose for quicker scanning. No wasted content, but minor structural improvements are possible.

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 (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations, and output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, sources, and examples, but lacks details on output format or error handling, which the output schema might address. For a data-fetching tool with good annotations, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., action enum values explained, symbol limited to BTC/ETH, range as time range). The description adds minimal semantics beyond this, such as examples linking actions to symbols, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's comprehensive 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 options market data from Deribit, OKX, Binance, Bybit.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('options market data'), and sources, which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'coinglass_oi_history' or 'coinglass_oi_distribution' that might also handle options-related data, missing full sibling distinction.

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 max pain: action="max_pain", symbol="BTC"') and context about what options data helps understand, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or direct sibling comparisons are included, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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