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'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does and includes examples of returned data (logo, description, website URLs), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and output structure. For a tool in a crowded sibling set with significant undocumented inputs, this leaves too many open questions for 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters or provide meaning for them (e.g., what 'symbol', 'id', 'slug', 'address', 'aux', or 'skip_invalid' do). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 all static metadata for one or more cryptocurrencies including logo, description, and website URLs.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('static metadata for cryptocurrencies'), and scope ('one or more'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cryptoCurrencyMap' or 'cryptoCategories' that might also provide metadata-related information.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'cryptoCurrencyMap' for mapping vs. 'getCryptoMetadata' for detailed metadata), or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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