CoinMarketCap MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like cryptocurrencies, exchanges, or indices, with clear boundaries. However, some overlap exists, such as 'cryptoCurrencyMap' and 'allCryptocurrencyListings' both listing cryptocurrencies, though one maps IDs and the other provides market data, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming is mixed with inconsistent patterns: some use camelCase (e.g., 'allCryptocurrencyListings'), others use snake_case (e.g., 'dex_pairs_ohlcv_historical'), and verb styles vary (e.g., 'getCryptoMetadata' vs. 'cryptoCategories'). This makes the set less predictable but still readable overall.
Tool Count3/5
With 26 tools, the count is borderline high for a cryptocurrency data server, feeling slightly heavy but not extreme. It covers multiple domains like crypto, DEX, exchanges, and indices, which justifies the number, but it could be streamlined for better focus.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for cryptocurrency and market data, including listings, quotes, historical data, metadata, indices, and conversions. There are no obvious gaps; it supports full CRUD-like operations for data retrieval and analysis across the domain.
Average 2.9/5 across 26 of 26 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), implying no destructive effects, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (implied by 'start' and 'limit' parameters), or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly terse given the tool's complexity—5 parameters and no output schema—suggesting under-specification rather than optimal brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, return values, or behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain the purpose of 'start', 'limit', 'sort', 'sort_dir', or 'aux'. Even with enums for 'sort' and 'sort_dir', the description adds no value beyond the bare schema, leaving semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of all networks to unique CoinMarketCap ids'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dexListingsLatest' or 'dexInfo', which might also involve network-related data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'dexListingsLatest' and 'dexInfo' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied by 'Returns' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination (given the 'count' parameter). For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases, but its brevity is appropriate for a basic overview.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of OHLCV data), error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., 'time_start' vs 'count'). For a data-fetching tool with many inputs and no output schema, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'time interval parameters' (vaguely referencing 'time_period' and 'interval'), ignoring 10 other parameters like 'contract_address', 'network_id', 'aux', etc. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter purposes, required combinations, or default behaviors, which is inadequate given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns historical OHLCV data along with market cap for any spot pairs using time interval parameters.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('historical OHLCV data'), and scope ('any spot pairs'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'dexPairsOhlcvLatest' which likely provides current data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other historical data tools like 'cmc100IndexHistorical' or 'fearAndGreedHistorical', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'time interval parameters' but doesn't specify which sibling tools (e.g., 'dexPairsOhlcvLatest' for current data, 'dexPairsQuotesLatest' for quotes) are better for different use cases. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns') and specifies temporal scope ('current UTC day'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, pagination, or what happens with invalid parameters. For a 7-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-constructed sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool that should have its parameters documented elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It explains what the tool returns at a high level but provides no guidance on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or output format. For a financial data tool with multiple filtering parameters, this leaves too many unanswered questions for effective agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about any parameters - it doesn't mention what 'contract_address', 'network_id', 'aux', or any other parameters mean or how they affect the query. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('latest OHLCV market values for one or more spot pairs'), specifying the scope ('for the current UTC day'). It distinguishes from historical data tools like 'dexPairsOhlcvHistorical' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other real-time tools like 'dexPairsQuotesLatest' or 'dexPairsTradeLatest'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'latest' values and 'current UTC day', but doesn't explain when to choose this over other real-time tools like 'dexPairsQuotesLatest' or 'dexPairsTradeLatest', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function and limit. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or response format. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the basic information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and output structure, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'contract_address', 'network_id', 'aux', or other parameters mean or how they affect the query. With 7 undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('latest trades for 1 spot pair'), with a specific limit ('up to the latest 100'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'dexPairsOhlcvHistorical' (historical OHLCV) and 'dexPairsQuotesLatest' (quotes), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'dexSpotPairsLatest' (which might list spot pairs rather than trades).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dexPairsQuotesLatest' for quotes or 'dexPairsOhlcvLatest' for OHLCV data. The description implies it's for trade data, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'paginated list' (implying multiple pages of results) and 'active' pairs (implying some filtering), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or what 'latest market data' specifically includes. For a tool with 27 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Returns' (action), 'paginated list' (format), 'all active dex spot pairs' (resource scope), 'with latest market data' (data included). No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (27 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain the extensive filtering capabilities implied by the many parameters, doesn't describe the response format, and provides no behavioral context. For a sophisticated data retrieval tool with many options, this minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero information about any of the 27 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of what parameters like 'network_id', 'liquidity_min', 'sort', or 'aux' mean or how to use them. This is a critical deficiency for such a parameter-rich tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a paginated list of all active dex spot pairs with latest market data.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('dex spot pairs'), and scope ('active' with 'latest market data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dexPairsQuotesLatest' or 'dexPairsOhlcvLatest', which appear to provide similar but different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to DEX pairs (e.g., dexPairsQuotesLatest, dexPairsOhlcvLatest), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions conversion but doesn't specify critical behaviors like data sources (e.g., real-time vs. historical rates), rate limits, error handling, or output format (e.g., whether it returns a single value or multiple conversions). For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently states the core function without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), it might be overly concise, missing needed explanatory context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits like data freshness or limits, or output structure. Without this context, an agent would struggle to use the tool correctly, especially with sibling tools offering overlapping functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely implies parameters like 'amount' and 'convert' but doesn't explain their semantics, such as what 'id' vs. 'symbol' represent, the format of 'time', or how 'convert_id' differs from 'convert'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: converting an amount between currencies (cryptocurrency or fiat). It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('amount of one cryptocurrency or fiat currency'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cryptoQuotesLatest' or 'globalMetricsLatest' that might provide related pricing data, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for currency conversion, or compare to sibling tools such as 'cryptoQuotesLatest' for single-currency quotes or 'fiatMap' for fiat currency details. Without any usage context, the agent must infer applicability from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'paginated list' which hints at pagination behavior, but doesn't disclose key traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'active' means. For a tool with 19 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Returns' (action), 'paginated list' (format), 'all active cryptocurrencies' (scope), 'with latest market data' (content). No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, pagination details, or how filtering parameters work. For a data-rich tool with many options, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 19 undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'paginated' (hinting at start/limit) and 'latest market data' (hinting at price/market cap fields), but provides no specifics about parameter meanings, defaults, or relationships. This is inadequate given the high parameter count and zero schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a paginated list of all active cryptocurrencies with latest market data.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('all active cryptocurrencies'), and scope ('paginated list with latest market data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cryptoCurrencyMap' or 'cryptoQuotesLatest', which likely serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 19 sibling tools including 'cryptoCurrencyMap' (likely a mapping tool) and 'cryptoQuotesLatest' (likely for quotes), there's no indication of when this paginated list with market data is preferred over other listing or data retrieval tools. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns historical values but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or response format. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential context about the interval parameter. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral traits. While it states the basic purpose, it lacks details needed for effective tool invocation, especially for a historical data tool where parameter semantics are crucial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'interval parameter' and its role in determining the returned interval, ignoring 'time_start', 'time_end', and 'count'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to explain what these parameters do or how they interact, which is insufficient given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns an interval of historic CoinMarketCap 100 Index values based on the interval parameter.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('historic CoinMarketCap 100 Index values'), and scope ('based on the interval parameter'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cmc100IndexLatest' (which likely returns current values), leaving room for improvement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the 'interval parameter' but doesn't explain when to choose this over siblings like 'cmc100IndexLatest' or other historical data tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, making it minimally helpful for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Returns information'), implying it is non-destructive, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (hinted by 'start' and 'limit' parameters), or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the 5 parameters (e.g., 'start', 'limit', 'id', 'slug', 'symbol'), leaving their semantics undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns information about all coin categories available on CoinMarketCap.' It specifies the verb ('Returns information about') and resource ('all coin categories'), but does not differentiate from siblings like 'cryptoCategory' (singular vs. plural).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'cryptoCategory' (for a single category) or 'cryptoCurrencyMap' (for currency mapping), leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns information'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly stating what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively. For a data-fetching tool in a rich API context, more detail is needed to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters (id, start, limit, convert, convert_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying 'id' is required for a single category. It doesn't explain what 'start' or 'limit' do (e.g., pagination), what 'convert' or 'convert_id' mean (e.g., currency conversion), or their formats, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns information') and resource ('about a single coin category on CoinMarketCap'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cryptoCategories' or 'getCryptoMetadata', which likely return similar or overlapping data, so it doesn't achieve full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'cryptoCategories' (which might list multiple categories) or 'getCryptoMetadata' (which could include category details), leaving the agent with no context for selection. This lack of comparative information reduces usability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Returns'), it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (despite having start/limit parameters), or what format the mapping returns. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a mapping tool and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the mapping looks like, how parameters filter or paginate results, or provide any behavioral context. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'listing_status', 'start', 'limit', 'sort', 'symbol', or 'aux' mean or how they affect the mapping. The description doesn't compensate for this complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('mapping of all cryptocurrencies to unique CoinMarketCap IDs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'exchangeMap' or 'fiatMap', which might provide similar mapping functionality for different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'allCryptocurrencyListings' and 'getCryptoMetadata' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this mapping tool is preferred or what specific use cases it serves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'latest' means (e.g., real-time vs. cached). This is a significant gap for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or parameter usage, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond a basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'one or more cryptocurrencies', hinting at parameters like 'id', 'slug', or 'symbol', but doesn't explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., what 'convert' or 'aux' do). This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('latest market quote for one or more cryptocurrencies'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dexPairsQuotesLatest' or 'globalMetricsLatest', which might also provide quote-like data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., real-time vs. historical data), or compare to siblings like 'dexPairsQuotesLatest' for DEX-specific quotes, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Returns all static metadata' but doesn't specify what 'static metadata' includes, whether it's read-only, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify parameter usage, output format, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (id and aux) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about these parameters. It doesn't explain what 'id' or 'aux' represent, their expected formats, or how they affect the output, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('static metadata for one or more decentralised exchanges'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'exchangeInfo' or 'dexListingsLatest', which might also provide exchange-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'exchangeInfo' and 'dexListingsLatest' that could overlap in functionality, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for 'dexInfo'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'paginated list' and 'latest aggregate market data', which hints at read-only behavior and data freshness. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'aggregate market data' specifically includes (e.g., volume, prices). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and directly states what the tool does. Every part of the sentence ('Returns...', 'paginated list...', 'latest aggregate market data') adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits (e.g., pagination mechanics, data sources), and output format. For a tool that likely returns structured financial data, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't explain any parameters—it doesn't mention 'start', 'limit', 'sort', 'type', etc., or their purposes. While it implies pagination and sorting via 'paginated list', it doesn't map this to specific parameters. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a paginated list of all decentralised cryptocurrency exchanges including the latest aggregate market data.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('decentralised cryptocurrency exchanges'), and scope ('paginated list' with 'latest aggregate market data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dexInfo' or 'dexNetworksList', which likely provide different types of DEX data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dexInfo' (which might provide detailed info on a specific DEX) or 'dexNetworksList' (which might list networks rather than exchanges). There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns quotes but doesn't mention critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or output format, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool correctly in a real-world context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions '1 or more spot pairs' but doesn't specify how to provide them (e.g., via parameters like 'contract_address' or 'network_id'). With 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain what any parameter does or how they relate to the quote retrieval, offering minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('latest market quote for 1 or more spot pairs'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'dexSpotPairsLatest' or 'cryptoQuotesLatest', which might offer similar quote functionality but for different data types or contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'dexSpotPairsLatest' and 'cryptoQuotesLatest' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's quotes (e.g., DEX-specific, real-time vs. historical), leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not address parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond a basic understanding of its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (id and slug) with 0% description coverage, meaning their semantics are undocumented. The description does not add any meaning to these parameters, such as explaining what 'id' or 'slug' refer to (e.g., exchange identifiers), how they interact, or if they are required. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('assets/token holdings of an exchange'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'exchangeInfo' or 'exchangeMap', which might provide different exchange-related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other exchange-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns metadata but does not specify whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough information for an agent to effectively use the tool, lacking details on parameters, behavior, and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters (id, slug, aux) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain their meanings or usage. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters undocumented and unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('metadata for one or more exchanges'), providing a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'exchangeMap' or 'exchangeAssets', which might also relate to exchange data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'exchangeMap' or 'exchangeAssets'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering minimal direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the mapping returns. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent purpose and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It states what the tool returns at a high level but doesn't explain how parameters affect results, what the mapping format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'listing_status', 'slug', 'start', 'limit', or 'sort' mean or how they affect the mapping. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('mapping of all exchanges to unique CoinMarketCap IDs'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on exchange mapping rather than cryptocurrency data, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'exchangeInfo' or 'exchangeAssets'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'exchangeInfo' or 'exchangeAssets' that might serve similar purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns historical values, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify data format, time range constraints, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Returns historical CMC Crypto Fear and Greed Index values.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on parameter usage, return format, behavioral traits, or differentiation from siblings. For a data-fetching tool with undocumented inputs, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to invoke it effectively and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the parameters 'start' and 'limit'. It doesn't explain what 'start' refers to (e.g., index, date, offset), what units 'limit' uses, or how they interact. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented and their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns historical CMC Crypto Fear and Greed Index values.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('historical CMC Crypto Fear and Greed Index values'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fearAndGreedLatest' by indicating historical data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other historical tools like 'cmc100IndexHistorical' beyond the specific index type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over 'fearAndGreedLatest' for historical vs. latest data, or how it relates to other historical tools like 'cmc100IndexHistorical'. There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('returns'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does and includes examples of returned data (logo, description, website URLs), making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and output structure. For a tool in a crowded sibling set with significant undocumented inputs, this leaves too many open questions for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters or provide meaning for them (e.g., what 'symbol', 'id', 'slug', 'address', 'aux', or 'skip_invalid' do). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns all static metadata for one or more cryptocurrencies including logo, description, and website URLs.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('static metadata for cryptocurrencies'), and scope ('one or more'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cryptoCurrencyMap' or 'cryptoCategories' that might also provide metadata-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'cryptoCurrencyMap' for mapping vs. 'getCryptoMetadata' for detailed metadata), or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or what 'latest' means (e.g., real-time vs. periodic updates). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what metrics are returned, how parameters affect results, or provide any context about data sources or limitations. For a tool in a crowded namespace with many sibling alternatives, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the two parameters ('convert' and 'convert_id'), and with 0% schema description coverage, both parameters are completely undocumented. The description doesn't compensate for this gap by explaining what these parameters do or how they affect the returned metrics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('latest global cryptocurrency market metrics'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cmc100IndexLatest' or 'fearAndGreedLatest' that also return latest metrics for specific subsets, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'cmc100IndexLatest' for index metrics and 'fearAndGreedLatest' for sentiment metrics, there's no indication of whether this tool is comprehensive or how it differs, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior, or what happens when parameters are omitted. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains what the tool returns at a high level but provides no guidance on how to use it effectively, what the parameters mean, or what the response structure looks like. The description doesn't meet the complexity demands of this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters at all, despite the schema having 4 parameters (start, limit, sort, include_metals) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't explain what these parameters do, their expected values, or how they affect the mapping result. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('mapping of all supported fiat currencies to unique CoinMarketCap IDs'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on fiat currencies rather than cryptocurrencies, exchanges, or other data types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this is for fiat currency mapping, there's no mention of when this would be preferable to other tools like 'cryptoCurrencyMap' or 'exchangeMap', nor any context about use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Returns' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, rate limits apply, what format the collection is returned in, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the basic purpose. However, it lacks details about the return format, authentication requirements, or how this tool fits within the broader context of sibling cryptocurrency data tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('a Postman collection for the CoinMarketCap API'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which primarily focus on cryptocurrency data retrieval rather than API documentation/collection tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools that handle cryptocurrency data operations rather than API documentation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool returns without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It's minimal and doesn't add context beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose clearly. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making every word count.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior or output, which could be helpful for an agent despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's appropriate here, earning a baseline high score for not being required to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('API key details and usage stats'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, as none appear to be directly related to API key management, so it misses 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context for invocation. It lacks any mention of related tools or scenarios, leaving usage entirely implicit based on the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('returns'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or potential errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: what the tool does and what data it returns. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by specifying the resource and output details clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a basic understanding of purpose but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON structure), data units, or any limitations, which could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't have to compensate for any parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the latest CoinMarketCap 100 Index value, constituents, and constituent weights.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('CoinMarketCap 100 Index') with details on what data is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'cmc100IndexHistorical', which provides historical data instead of latest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'latest' data, suggesting this tool is for current information rather than historical trends. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cmc100IndexHistorical' or other crypto data tools, leaving the agent to infer the distinction based on the 'latest' keyword.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a value but does not describe the return format (e.g., numeric score, timestamp, metadata), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, scoring a 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured, earning a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on the return value format and behavioral aspects, which are important for an AI agent to use it correctly. With no output schema, the description should ideally explain what is returned, but it does not, resulting in a minimally viable but incomplete description, scoring a 3.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. According to the rules, 0 parameters results in a baseline score of 4, as no additional semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and the specific resource ('latest CMC Crypto Fear and Greed Index value'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'fearAndGreedHistorical' by specifying 'latest' versus historical data, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, warranting a 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'latest' value, suggesting it's for current data rather than historical trends. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fearAndGreedHistorical' or other crypto tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This results in an implied usage scenario, scoring a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![coinmarketcap-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Alexander-Herranz/coinmarketcap-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Alexander-Herranz/coinmarketcap-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![coinmarketcap-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Alexander-Herranz/coinmarketcap-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Alexander-Herranz/coinmarketcap-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Alexander-Herranz/coinmarketcap-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server