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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.