CoinMarketCap MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.