CoinGlass MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it discloses the requirement for a 'Startup+ plan' (an access constraint not covered by annotations) and provides practical examples of different action types. Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them.

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 efficient: it starts with the core purpose, adds usage context, includes an important note about plan requirements, and provides concrete examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, one required), rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, access requirements, and provides examples. The main gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but overall it's quite complete for its context.

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 input schema already thoroughly documents all parameters. The description provides examples that illustrate parameter usage (e.g., 'action="positions", symbol="BTC"'), but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline 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: 'Track whale activity on Hyperliquid. Monitor large traders' positions and activity.' It specifies the resource (whale activity/positions) and the platform (Hyperliquid). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'coinglass_long_short' or 'coinglass_oi_distribution' that might also track market activity, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for following smart money and identifying potential market moves.' It also includes examples that illustrate different use cases (alerts, positions, all_positions). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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