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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.