CoinGlass MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool returns 'matching tools with their available actions,' clarifying the output structure. Annotations already indicate it's read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. No contradictions exist; it complements annotations by detailing the search functionality and result format.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and examples. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies when to use it, the third describes the return, and the examples illustrate practical queries. It's efficiently structured without redundancy.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output behavior adequately, without needing to detail parameters or safety aspects already handled by structured data.

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 the parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema as 'Search query (e.g., 'liquidation BTC', 'funding arbitrage').' The description adds minimal extra semantics through examples (e.g., 'query="liquidation"'), but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 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: 'Search available CoinGlass operations' to 'discover which tool and action to use for your task.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('CoinGlass operations'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on discovery rather than executing specific operations like 'funding_current' or 'liq_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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover which tool and action to use for your task.' It provides clear examples (e.g., 'Find liquidation tools: query="liquidation"'), guiding users to employ it for exploration before selecting a specific sibling tool, effectively differentiating its role from direct data-fetching tools.

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