CoinGlass MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about what taker volume measures and how to interpret buy ratios (bullish/bearish signals), which is useful behavioral information not captured in annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness.

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. It starts with the core purpose, explains what taker volume represents, and provides concrete examples. Every sentence adds value, though the bullish/bearish explanation could be slightly more concise. The formatting with bullet points and examples is clear.

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), the description provides good context about what the tool returns (taker volume data with buy ratio interpretation). With annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema presumably defining the return structure, the description focuses appropriately on the tool's purpose and usage patterns rather than repeating structured information.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it only provides examples linking 'action' and 'symbol' parameters to specific use cases. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 taker buy/sell volume data.' It specifies the exact resource (taker volume data) and verb (get), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on taker volume rather than other metrics like funding, open interest, or liquidation data. The explanation of what taker volume represents adds valuable context.

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 clear usage context through examples that map action parameters to specific use cases (BTC taker volume, by exchange). It implicitly suggests when to use different actions but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives like coinglass_market_data or coinglass_spot, which might also provide volume-related data.

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