CoinMarketCap MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.