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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.