Coinranking1 MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have clear distinctions in their primary targets (coins, exchanges, markets, blockchains, etc.), but there is notable overlap in functionality. For example, get_coin_price and get_coin_fiat_price both retrieve price data, and get_coins and get_coins_index both list coins, which could cause confusion for an agent. Descriptions help clarify differences, but the redundancy is present.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a verb-noun structure (e.g., get_coin, get_exchanges). The naming is predictable and uniform across all 37 tools, making it easy to parse and understand the purpose of each tool at a glance.
Tool Count2/5
With 37 tools, the count is excessive for a cryptocurrency data server, leading to a bloated and potentially overwhelming interface. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple history endpoints) or are redundant (e.g., get_coins and get_coins_index), indicating poor scoping and unnecessary complexity.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for cryptocurrency data, including coins, exchanges, markets, blockchains, tags, and global statistics. It supports CRUD-like operations (e.g., get, list, search) across all domains, with no obvious gaps in functionality for querying and analyzing crypto data.
Average 3.1/5 across 37 of 37 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '$237' offers no information about what the tool does, its safety profile, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what kind of data it returns. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about 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.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just '$237', this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate any meaningful information about the tool's purpose or usage, making it functionally useless despite its short length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely uninformative description, this is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or how it behaves compared to alternatives in a rich ecosystem of sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for this scenario is appropriately set at 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '$237' is a tautology that merely repeats the tool name's concept of 'get bulk data' without specifying what data or resources are involved. It fails to distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools that also retrieve coin-related information, leaving the purpose vague and unhelpful for agent selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. With numerous sibling tools like get_coins, get_coin_markets, and get_global_stats, there is no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over other data retrieval options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions that the data is used for charts, implying it's likely a read-only operation for historical data, but doesn't explicitly state this, nor does it cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is repetitive and poorly structured, with the phrase 'On Coinranking, we use this endpoint on our' repeated three times for different charts. This adds unnecessary length without providing new information. It could be condensed into a single sentence listing the chart uses, making it more front-loaded and efficient. The current version wastes space on redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (historical data retrieval with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., format of dominance vs. market cap data), potential limitations, or how the parameters affect results. For a tool with no structured output information, this leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (referenceCurrencyUuid and timePeriod) fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as default behaviors or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves 'bitcoin dominance history along with bitcoin market capitalization data', which provides a clear verb ('get') and resource ('bitcoin dominance history'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_coin_market_cap_history or get_global_market_cap_history, which might retrieve similar market cap data. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes three examples of where Coinranking uses this endpoint (bitcoin dominance chart, global trading volume chart, global market cap chart), which implies usage contexts. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_coin_market_cap_history or get_global_market_cap_history, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The examples are helpful but don't constitute clear usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Find a blockchain' gives minimal insight - it suggests a read operation but doesn't describe what details are returned, whether it's a search or exact match, error behavior for invalid names, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication. It's front-loaded (the entire description is the first and only phrase) but fails to provide necessary context that would justify such extreme conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single but critical parameter, the description is incomplete. For a lookup tool in what appears to be a cryptocurrency/blockchain API with many similar tools, the description should clarify what 'details' means, how this differs from other blockchain-related tools, and what format the response takes. The current description leaves too much for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already states. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find a blockchain' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_blockchain_details' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what details are retrieved, what format they come in, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_blockchains' (which presumably lists multiple blockchains). The verb 'find' is vague compared to more precise alternatives like 'retrieve details about' or 'fetch metadata for'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_blockchains' (likely listing all blockchains), 'get_coin' (for specific coins), and 'get_blockchain_uuid_by_contract_address' (for lookup by address), the description offers no context about when this specific lookup-by-name tool is appropriate versus those other options. The agent must infer usage from the parameter alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'gets stats' but doesn't clarify what stats are returned (e.g., format, data types), whether it's a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details about purpose and usage that would make it more helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what stats are returned, how results are structured, or when to use this tool over alternatives. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively without relying heavily on the input schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters with clear descriptions, defaults, and examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that parameters are used to select coins, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get stats for a selection of coins' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates the action ('get stats') and resource ('selection of coins'), it lacks specificity about what kind of stats are retrieved (e.g., price, market cap, volume) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_coin', 'get_coins', or 'get_coin_price_history' that might also retrieve coin statistics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selection (e.g., filtering by UUIDs or tags), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_coins' or 'get_coin_markets'. Without this, an agent must infer usage from parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 describes what data is available (ranking types) but fails to mention critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or data format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but could be more front-loaded; it starts with a general statement and then lists ranking types with embedded links, which adds some clutter. Sentences are informative but not optimally structured for quick scanning, and the inclusion of markdown links slightly reduces efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what data is available but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints. For a tool with 3 parameters and historical data retrieval, more context is needed to ensure proper usage without relying on external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents parameters (uuid, interval, limit) with details like defaults and allowed values. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or contextual usage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves historical ranking data for coins, specifying different ranking types (market cap, volume, price, fully diluted market cap). However, it lacks a clear, specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch' and doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like 'get_coin_market_cap_history' or 'get_coin_price_history', which might overlap in scope. The purpose is understandable but vague in differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It mentions available ranking types but doesn't clarify scenarios for choosing this over similar tools (e.g., 'get_coin_market_cap_history' for market cap data only). Usage is implied through context but lacks direct instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states what the statistics are about without detailing response format, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative to improve clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what statistics are returned, their format, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for a tool that likely provides complex data. More context is needed to fully understand the tool's functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, but with 0 required parameters and high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. Since the tool effectively has 0 required parameters (all optional), a score of 4 reflects that the description doesn't need to compensate for parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides 'global statistics' about 'data available on coinranking', which gives a vague purpose. It mentions the resource (global statistics) but lacks a specific verb or clear differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_global_market_cap_history' or 'get_global_trading_volume_history', making it unclear what exact statistics are returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to differentiate from similar sibling tools that also provide global data, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the endpoint is used on specific charts, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description provides minimal operational context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise but has structural issues. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second and third sentences are redundant (both mention 'On Coinranking, we use this endpoint on our...') and don't add meaningful guidance. The chart links provide context but don't help an agent understand how to use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a data retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, the format of historical data points, or how to interpret results. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent lacks crucial information about response structure and behavioral constraints needed to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the input schema. It doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide usage examples, or clarify edge cases. The schema already thoroughly documents all three parameters with defaults and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves historical cryptocurrency trading data for analyzing market trends and tracking activity over time. It specifies the resource (global trading volume history) and purpose (analysis/tracking), but doesn't distinguish it from similar siblings like 'get_global_market_cap_history' beyond mentioning both endpoints are used on different charts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions it's used on Coinranking's global trading volume and market cap charts, but this doesn't help an agent choose between this tool and similar ones like 'get_global_market_cap_history' or 'get_coin_price_history'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'finds information' but doesn't specify what type of information (e.g., price, market cap, details), whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Find information about a specific coin.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to the core purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a coin information tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'information' includes, how results are structured, or handle nuances like missing data. With many sibling tools, more context is needed to avoid confusion and ensure correct tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters (uuid, referenceCurrencyUuid, timePeriod) with details like defaults, allowed values, and examples. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Find information about a specific coin' with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('coin'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_coins' (plural) or 'get_coin_price', which might retrieve similar or overlapping data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools like 'get_coin_price', 'get_coins', and 'get_coin_market_cap_history', it's unclear if this tool is for general coin details, specific metrics, or something else. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions real-time data and reference currencies but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with potential API constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with key information. It efficiently explains the tool's purpose and references additional resources without unnecessary details, though the link could be more integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like return values, error cases, or operational constraints, making it inadequate for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'uuid'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a UUID represents or where to obtain it, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides real-time cryptocurrency prices in fiat currencies, specifying the verb ('provides') and resource ('cryptocurrency prices'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_coin_price' by emphasizing fiat currency conversion, though not explicitly contrasting them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions a related endpoint for reference currencies but does not specify when to choose this over siblings like 'get_coin_price' or 'get_coin_price_history', leaving usage context implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'finds' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (since there's no output schema). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The second sentence adds contextual usage but is somewhat tangential. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured by integrating the context more directly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' but not explained). For a tool that returns financial data over intervals, more context on what 'gains and losses' entails (e.g., percentage changes, time frames) would be helpful to the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'uuid' explains how to find it, 'interval' lists allowed values). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find gains and losses data for a specific coin over different time intervals.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('gains and losses data'), and scope ('specific coin,' 'different time intervals'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_coin_price_history' or 'get_coin_ohlc_data,' which might also involve time-series data, though the focus on 'gains and losses' is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that 'On Coinranking we use this endpoint on our coin detail page,' which implies a context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_coin_price_history' for raw prices). No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent with little direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains how market cap is calculated (price × circulation) but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like (e.g., time-series data), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a historical data tool with no annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second explains market cap calculation. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the second sentence about calculation could be considered slightly redundant if the agent already understands market cap, but it's still concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of historical data retrieval with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, response format, error handling) and usage guidelines. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for an AI agent to use this tool effectively is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (uuid, interval, limit) with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or additional context about UUID lookup. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves historical market cap data for a specific coin, using the verb 'check out' and specifying 'historical market cap'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_coin_price_history or get_global_market_cap_history by focusing on coin-specific market cap history. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like get_coin_price_history or get_global_market_cap_history. It mentions the endpoint but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only mentions the plan requirement, but fails to describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it has rate limits, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of markets with details), or any pagination behavior implied by the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another noting the plan requirement. It's front-loaded with the core function, and the second sentence adds necessary context without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, rate limits), output format, and usage guidelines relative to siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotation and output schema context, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'uuid' for the coin, 'limit' for pagination). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't clarify parameter relationships, usage examples, or edge cases. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find markets on different exchanges that trade a specific coin.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('markets'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_markets' (general markets) or 'get_coin_exchanges' (exchanges for a coin). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchange_markets' (markets on a specific exchange), which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 a plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), but doesn't explain when to choose this over siblings like 'get_markets' (all markets) or 'get_coin_exchanges' (exchanges for a coin). Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, usage context is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'lists prices and their timestamp' and is 'useful for making a chart,' which implies a read-only operation returning historical data. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, pagination, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure, timestamps in ISO format). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences: the first explains the tool's function, and the second provides a usage hint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. However, the first sentence ('Coinranking keeps track of prices on all listed assets.') is somewhat generic and could be more tightly integrated with the tool-specific information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (historical price data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., array of price-timestamp pairs), data granularity, or potential limitations (e.g., max time range). For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (referenceCurrencyUuid, timePeriod, uuid) well-documented in the input schema, including default values and allowed values for timePeriod. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'lists prices and their timestamp for the requested time period' and mentions it's 'useful for making a chart.' It specifies the action (list), resource (prices with timestamps), and scope (requested time period). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coin_price' or 'get_coin_ohlc_data' which might provide similar price-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions the tool is 'useful for making a chart,' which implies a visualization context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coin_price' (for current price) or 'get_coin_ohlc_data' (for OHLC data). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 retrieves historical supply data but doesn't mention key behaviors such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data. The FAQ link is external and not integrated into the description, so it adds minimal value for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the tool's purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence provides an external FAQ link, which is somewhat redundant but not overly verbose. Overall, it avoids unnecessary details and is appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool, though the link could be integrated more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., time-series data format), potential limitations, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more context to help the agent understand the full scope and behavior of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (interval, limit, uuid), including defaults, allowed values, and ranges. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or contextual usage tips. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without needing extra explanation in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'check out a coin's historical amount of supplies.' It specifies the verb ('check out') and resource ('coin's historical amount of supplies'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coin_price_history' or 'get_coin_market_cap_history,' which might also retrieve historical data but for different metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 an FAQ link for general information about supplies but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_coin' or 'get_coins,' which might offer related data. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 retrieves data for analysis, implying read-only behavior, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or response format. The mention of a website link adds minimal practical context for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, while the second provides a real-world example (website link), though this example may not be highly useful for an AI agent. There is no redundant information, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (historical data retrieval with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, data format, or behavioral constraints like rate limits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('referenceCurrencyUuid' and 'timePeriod') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'retrieve historical cryptocurrency market capitalization data' with the specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'historical cryptocurrency market capitalization data'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_coin_market_cap_history' by specifying 'global' scope, though not explicitly contrasting them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions analyzing trends and tracking market performance, but does not specify when to choose this over similar tools like 'get_coin_market_cap_history' or 'get_global_stats', 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the response includes essentials like symbol and sign, which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: no mention of pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a read operation with parameters, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose and key response details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from response format). It efficiently covers core aspects without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and response essentials but misses behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors), usage guidelines, and output details beyond symbol/sign. For a tool with filtering and pagination, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (types, limit, offset). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying the response includes symbol and sign. It doesn't explain how 'types' filtering relates to the reference use-case or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of reference currencies' with the specific use-case 'which can be used as reference for coins.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reference currencies rather than coins, markets, exchanges, or other crypto data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (none in siblings) beyond the reference use-case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the use-case 'reference for coins' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'get_coins' or 'get_coin_price'. Without annotations, this leaves the agent guessing about context or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response returns 'a set of the most prominent' matches, which adds useful context about result filtering. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format (e.g., pagination, structure). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for full behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the first sentence could be more direct (e.g., 'Retrieve search suggestions for coinranking data'). The misleading parameter count slightly reduces efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and result context but lacks completeness. It covers what the tool does and the type of data returned, but misses details like authentication needs, rate limits, and full behavioral traits. For a search tool with two parameters, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (referenceCurrencyUuid and query). The description adds that 'the endpoint only accepts one parameter; a query', which is misleading as the schema shows two parameters. It also explains the query searches by symbol or name, adding some semantics beyond the schema's 'Value to search on'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'find data on coinranking' via search suggestions, specifying it searches for currencies, exchanges, and markets by symbol or name. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on search functionality rather than specific data retrieval (e.g., get_coin, get_exchanges). However, it could be more specific about the verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'fetch' suggestions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 searching for currencies, exchanges, and markets, but does not compare to sibling tools like get_coins or get_exchanges, which might retrieve similar data without search. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 finds information (implying read-only) but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The link to Coinranking's page adds minimal context but lacks operational details needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about Coinranking's categories page adds context but could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., tag metadata, associated coins), error handling, or usage constraints. For a data-fetching tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how slug relates to tag selection or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find information about a specific tag.' It specifies the resource (tag) and verb (find information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_list_of_tags' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction. The mention of Coinranking's categories page adds context but doesn't fully clarify functional uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the categories page but doesn't explain when to fetch tag details versus other tag-related operations or coin data tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling tool comparisons are included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions a plan requirement ('ultra' plan or higher), which is useful context about access control. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), or what the response format looks like, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences: the core purpose, a usage example with a link, and a plan requirement. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the plan requirement earlier, but overall it's efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error cases, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly. The plan requirement is helpful, but more behavioral context is needed to compensate for the lack of structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with defaults, ranges, and allowed values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'uuid' relates to exchanges or the impact of 'referenceCurrencyUuid.' This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find markets on a specific exchange.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('markets on a specific exchange'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_markets' or 'get_coin_markets,' which might cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning it's used on an exchange markets page and requires an 'ultra' plan or higher, which implies when to use it based on access level. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_markets' or 'get_coin_markets,' leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'address is case-insensitive' (a useful behavioral trait), but lacks other critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., returns a UUID), error handling, or rate limits. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second adds context about terminology variations. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly mentioning the output). Overall, it's efficient with little waste, earning a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and parameter context but lacks output details (what 'UUID' means or the return format) and behavioral traits like error cases. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, resulting in a 3 for being minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('blockchain' and 'address') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'contract address' terminology varies by ecosystem and gives an example (Tether on Ethereum), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find a specific coin by the contract address on its blockchain.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('specific coin'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_coin' (which likely uses a different identifier). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_coins' for multiple coins), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by explaining the term 'contract address' varies per ecosystem (e.g., 'smart contract address' in Ethereum, 'token address' elsewhere). It suggests this tool is for looking up coins by blockchain-specific addresses, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_coin' (which might use a coin ID) or provide exclusions, resulting in a score of 3 for implied guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the 'ultra' plan requirement, which is a useful auth/access constraint. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), response format, or error handling. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical context (plan requirement). There's no wasted text, and both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key constraint (plan requirement) but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and how to interpret results, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters (e.g., 'uuid' for the coin, 'limit' for pagination). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or additional constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find exchanges where a specific coin can be traded.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('exchanges'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_exchanges' (general exchange list) or 'get_coin_markets' (markets for a coin). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchange_coins' (coins on an exchange), which could be a related inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by stating 'This endpoint requires the **ultra** plan or higher,' which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coin_markets' or 'get_exchange_coins,' nor does it specify scenarios where it's preferred or excluded. The usage is implied but not explicitly detailed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions a plan requirement, which is useful, but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of modifiers with balances), or any rate limits or error conditions. For a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint (plan requirement). It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with parameters that fetches data (likely a list of modifiers), the description is incomplete. It misses details like the return format, whether it's paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), and behavioral traits. For a tool in a context with many siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters (uuid, limit, offset). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'modifiers' are or how pagination works in this context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('modifiers of a coin's supply and their balance'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coin_supply_history' or 'get_coin', which might provide related data, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite ('requires the **ultra** plan or higher'), which provides some context for usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coin' or 'get_coin_supply_history', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 does reveal that the response includes both a coin list and statistics, and mentions the default ordering behavior. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The behavioral information is incomplete for a tool with 10 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the primary purpose and ordering behavior, while the second adds important context about the response format. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It explains what the tool returns (list + statistics) but doesn't detail the response structure, pagination behavior, or how to interpret the statistics. With no annotations and no output schema, more comprehensive behavioral and output information would be helpful for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics - it mentions the default ordering by rank/marketcap (related to orderBy parameter) and references 24-hour volume statistics (related to timePeriod parameter). However, it doesn't provide additional context beyond what's already in the comprehensive schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of coins' with additional statistics. It specifies the default ordering by rank/marketcap and mentions the inclusion of statistics like 24-hour volume. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coins_index' or 'get_stats_for_selection_of_coins' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools available (like get_coin, get_coins_index, get_stats_for_selection_of_coins), there's no indication of when this general list tool is preferred over more specific ones. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 adds some context about the plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe what type of information is returned (e.g., exchange details, trading volumes, fees), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication needs beyond the plan mention. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, defining what an exchange is, and noting the plan requirement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the middle sentence about exchange definition could be considered slightly redundant for an AI agent familiar with cryptocurrency contexts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and plan context but lacks details about return values, error handling, or comprehensive behavioral traits. For a read operation with 2 parameters, it's minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response format and potential limitations. The sibling context suggests this is part of a cryptocurrency data API, but the description doesn't leverage this context fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (uuid and referenceCurrencyUuid). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find information on a specific exchange listed on coinranking' with the specific resource 'exchange' and verb 'find information'. It distinguishes exchanges as 'a place where cryptocurrencies are traded', which helps differentiate from sibling tools like get_exchanges (plural) or get_markets. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_exchange_coins or get_exchange_markets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context by specifying that it's for 'a specific exchange' (singular) rather than multiple exchanges, and mentions the plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_exchanges (for multiple exchanges) or get_exchange_coins (for coins on an exchange), nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond the plan requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions retrieving 'latest coin listings' and references a web page, but doesn't describe key traits like whether it's read-only, if it has rate limits, what the output format is, or any authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The second sentence provides contextual information but could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though not perfectly streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It clarifies the purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavior, output, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, more guidance would be helpful for an AI agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters ('referenceCurrencyUuid' and 'uuid'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve the latest coin listings on a specific exchange.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('latest coin listings on a specific exchange'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_exchange_coins' or 'get_exchange_markets', which might also retrieve exchange-related coin data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'latest coin listings' and linking to a specific page for 'new coins,' suggesting it's for recent additions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_exchange_coins' or 'get_coins'), and doesn't state any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what data tags provide (coin count, volume, market cap) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a data-fetching tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded (purpose first, then details, then usage hint). There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and hints at usage but lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, limitations) and doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a data retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (referenceCurrencyUuid and timePeriod) with detailed descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as how these parameters affect the tag list output. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of all our tags' with specific details about what each tag provides (insights into coin count, market statistics). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_tag_details' by indicating this lists all tags rather than details of a specific tag. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tag-related tools beyond mentioning filtering use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by mentioning tags 'can also be used in the coins endpoint as a filter,' suggesting this tool is for obtaining tag data to use elsewhere. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. 'get_tag_details' or other tag-related tools) and doesn't 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.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), which adds context about access control. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with pagination and a required UUID), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and access requirement but misses details on behavior, response format, and how it differs from siblings. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in providing full context for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'limit', 'offset', and 'uuid'. The description does not add any additional meaning or semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'uuid' relates to coins or the structure of returned blockchains). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the issuance blockchains on which the coin is issued.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('issuance blockchains'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_blockchains' or 'get_blockchain_details', which could provide similar blockchain-related data, so it doesn't reach 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by stating that it requires the 'ultra plan or higher,' which implies a prerequisite for access. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_blockchains' for general blockchain data or 'get_coin' for coin details), nor does it provide explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. The guidance is implied but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a single price nearest to the requested time (not exact), includes a timestamp, and defaults to latest price if timestamp is omitted. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a price-fetching tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, using two sentences that directly explain the tool's function and response. There is no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and key behavior (nearest price, timestamp inclusion, default to latest), but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance constraints, which are needed for full contextual understanding in a financial API tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the timestamp's default behavior and that the response includes a timestamp, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to request a price for a specific coin at a specific time, returning a single price with timestamp. It uses specific verbs ('requested', 'get') and identifies the resource ('coin'), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_coin_fiat_price' or 'get_coin_price_history', which reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning the timestamp parameter's default behavior (latest price if not provided), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coin_fiat_price' or 'get_coin_price_history'. It provides some context but lacks clear guidance on exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the subscription requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, and the second adds essential usage information. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key constraint (subscription requirement), but lacks details on output format, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps, aligning with a minimum viable score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List of all coins currently available on coinranking, for indexing purposes.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('all coins'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_coins' by mentioning 'for indexing purposes.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchanges_index' or other indexing tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by stating 'This endpoint requires the **ultra** plan or higher,' which implies when to use it based on subscription level. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_coins' or 'get_exchanges_index,' and doesn't mention exclusions or specific scenarios. This results in implied rather than clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking behavior and a plan requirement, which are useful. However, it doesn't cover other key traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ranking, followed by the plan requirement. It's efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating behavioral details).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and a plan requirement but lacks details on output format, pagination rules, error cases, and full behavioral context. This is adequate for a basic read operation but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how filters affect pagination). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of exchanges' with specific ranking criteria ('ranked based on their trading volume in the last 24 hours'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_exchange' (singular) and 'get_exchange_coins' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchanges_index' which might be similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving ranked exchanges and mentions a plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_exchange' for single exchange details or 'get_exchanges_index' for indexing. The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 adds value by specifying the ranking method (by 24-hour volume) and the plan requirement, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, response format, or pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, ranking, filter usage, and plan requirement. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by structuring the plan requirement more prominently, but overall, it's well-sized and avoids waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose, ranking, and plan requirement, but lacks details on response format, error cases, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain return values, which it doesn't, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description does not add any specific parameter details beyond the general mention of filters, so it doesn't enhance semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of markets' with the specific detail that 'Markets are ranked by their volume over the last 24 hours.' This provides a verb+resource combination and adds ranking context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market' (singular) or 'get_coin_markets,' which might serve similar purposes, so it doesn't reach a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'Use our filters to get a subset of the markets' and notes a plan requirement ('requires the **ultra** plan or higher'), which provides some guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_market' or 'get_coin_markets,' nor does it detail exclusions or prerequisites beyond the plan, so it's not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ultra plan requirement (authentication/access level), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (no output schema). The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the core purpose, second sentence provides critical prerequisite information. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and access requirement but doesn't explain the return format, pagination strategy, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more context about what to expect would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained the relationship between parameters like uuid (required exchange identifier) and others.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: 'Find coins listed on a specific exchange' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_coins' (general coins) and 'get_exchange' (exchange details) by specifying exchange-specific coin listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchange_markets' or 'get_exchange_new_coins' which might have overlapping scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by stating the ultra plan requirement, which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coins' (all coins) or 'get_exchange_markets' (markets on exchange). No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 adds context about the 'ultra plan or higher' requirement, which is useful for authentication/access needs. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields). This leaves gaps, but the plan requirement adds some value beyond basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, and the second specifies the plan requirement. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning output or usage scenarios, but it's efficient with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete by covering purpose and access requirements. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral aspects like error handling, which could be helpful for an AI agent. It's adequate but has clear gaps in providing a full context for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details and focuses on the tool's purpose and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List of all exchanges currently available on Coinranking, for indexing purposes.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('exchanges'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_exchange' (singular) and 'get_exchange_coins'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchanges' (plural), which might be similar, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by stating 'for indexing purposes' and noting the plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), which implies when it might be used. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_exchanges' or other exchange-related tools, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral trait: the plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), which is useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it does not describe other aspects like rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a plan requirement, which is helpful. However, for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('referenceCurrencyUuid' and 'uuid') with descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find information on a specific market listed on Coinranking.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('market'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_markets' (plural) or 'get_coin_markets', which might retrieve multiple markets or coin-specific markets. This makes it clear but not fully distinct from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context for usage: 'This endpoint requires the **ultra** plan or higher.' This indicates a prerequisite (plan requirement) for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_markets' or 'get_coin_markets', missing sibling differentiation. The guidance is clear but incomplete for alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get a list'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description adds some context about how the output can be used, but lacks details on the tool's operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the core action and follows with practical application, making it easy to parse. However, the second sentence is slightly long but remains informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use the output, but lacks details on response format, potential errors, or performance characteristics. For a basic list tool, it's functional but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This aligns with the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of all blockchains.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all blockchains'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_blockchain_details' or 'get_coins' beyond mentioning them in usage context, so it's not fully distinctive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to obtain a list of blockchain names for further queries. It also names alternatives ('blockchain details endpoint' and 'Get UUID by contract address endpoint') for specific follow-up actions, clearly indicating when to use this vs. other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 adds useful context about plan requirements ('requires the ultra plan or higher'), which is not in the schema, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format. It adequately covers the basic operation but misses deeper behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a critical constraint in the second, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized, efficiently conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, plan requirement, and implies time-series data. However, it could improve by hinting at the response structure or data format, as no output schema exists to fill that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'interval' affects data granularity or 'limit' impacts results. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get OHLCV data') and resource ('for the coin throughout time'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_coin_price_history or get_coin_market_cap_history by specifying OHLCV metrics. It provides a precise verb+resource combination with no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get OHLCV data for the coin throughout time') and includes a prerequisite ('requires the ultra plan or higher'), providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as get_coin_price_history for simpler price data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behaviors: the dynamic ranking mechanism, default limit (top 50), inclusion of USD prices, and additional statistics like 24-hour volume. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core purpose, second explains the ranking and default behavior, third adds details about response content. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness: it explains what 'trending' means, specifies default behavior, and describes response content including prices and statistics. The main gap is the lack of output format details (structure of returned data), but given the tool's relative simplicity and clear purpose, this is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed documentation for all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does contextualize the overall output (e.g., 'price of each trending coin in USD' relates to referenceCurrencyUuid). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of trending coins' with specific details about ranking ('ranked dynamically based on user engagement and popularity'), default behavior ('returns the top 50 trending coins'), and output format ('price of each trending coin in USD'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_coins' or 'get_coin_markets' by focusing specifically on trending coins rather than general coin data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by explaining what 'trending coins' means and the default behavior, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coins' or 'get_coin_markets'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![coinranking1 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/coinranking1/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/coinranking1)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![coinranking1 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/coinranking1/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/coinranking1)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/coinranking1'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server