Fetch CoinGecko exchange profile stats and market rows by exchange ID; set quote currency and row limit to get clean JSON.
CoinGecko exchange detail. Returns profile stats and market rows from a CoinGecko exchange page. This endpoint supports the documented vs_currency enum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | CoinGecko exchange id such as binance | |
| limit | No | Rows to return, default 100, max 100 | |
| vs_currency | No | Quote currency |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / vs_currency / enumAdded value: +[
+ "btc",
+ "eth",
+ "ltc",
+ "bch",
+ "bnb",
+ "eos",
+ "xrp",
+ "xlm",
+ "link",
+ "dot",
+ "yfi",
+ "sol",
+ "usd",
+ "aed",
+ "ars",
+ "aud",
+ "bdt",
+ "bhd",
+ "bmd",
+ "brl",
+ "cad",
+ "chf",
+ "clp",
+ "cny",
+ "czk",
+ "dkk",
+ "eur",
+ "gbp",
+ "gel",
+ "hkd",
+ "huf",
+ "idr",
+ "ils",
+ "inr",
+ "jpy",
+ "krw",
+ "kwd",
+ "lkr",
+ "mmk",
+ "mxn",
+ "myr",
+ "ngn",
+ "nok",
+ "nzd",
+ "php",
+ "pkr",
+ "pln",
+ "rub",
+ "sar",
+ "sek",
+ "sgd",
+ "thb",
+ "try",
+ "twd",
+ "uah",
+ "vef",
+ "vnd",
+ "zar",
+ "xdr",
+ "xag",
+ "xau",
+ "bits",
+ "sats"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It touches the return content ('profile stats and market rows') but says nothing about pagination despite a limit/max-100 parameter, nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a no-annotation tool 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, roughly front-loaded with purpose. The third sentence about the vs_currency enum is largely filler that restates the schema, so the description is not as tight as it could be, though it is not bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially covers returns by naming 'profile stats and market rows,' which is adequate for a read tool. However, it omits pagination behavior tied to the limit parameter and any usage context, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (id, limit, vs_currency) are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's only param-oriented remark, 'supports the documented vs_currency enum,' repeats what the enum schema already conveys rather than adding format or behavioral meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource ('CoinGecko exchange detail') and states what it returns ('profile stats and market rows from a CoinGecko exchange page'), which is clear and non-tautological. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling coingecko_exchanges (list) tool, so an agent must infer the detail-vs-list split from the naming alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the coingecko_exchanges sibling, and no prerequisites. The only implicit signal is that an 'id' like 'binance' is required, implying single-exchange lookup, but nothing guides the agent on choosing this over the list endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.