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 value by specifying the scope ('spot market data') and providing concrete examples of different actions and their required parameters (like exchange and pair for price_history). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful operational context.

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. It uses bullet points for examples that efficiently demonstrate different use cases without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence serves a clear purpose in explaining the tool's functionality.

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 rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It covers the main use cases with examples and specifies the data domain. A 5 would require explicit sibling differentiation or more detailed behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide.

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. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'action' values in examples but doesn't provide additional semantic context. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the 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 spot market data' with specific examples of what it provides (supported coins, trading pairs, market summaries, historical prices). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on spot market data specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tools like 'coinglass_market_data' or 'coinglass_price_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 implied usage through examples that show different actions and their parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'coinglass_market_data' or 'coinglass_price_history' from the sibling list. The examples help but lack explicit guidance on tool selection.

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