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 metadata but does not specify whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 (3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough information for an agent to effectively use the tool, lacking details on parameters, behavior, and output.

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 3 parameters (id, slug, aux) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain their meanings or usage. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters undocumented and 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 action ('Returns') and resource ('metadata for one or more exchanges'), providing a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'exchangeMap' or 'exchangeAssets', which might also relate to exchange 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'exchangeMap' or 'exchangeAssets'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering minimal direction for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.