Fetch CoinGecko's top gainers and losers in normalized rows. Supports multiple quote currencies for market analysis.
CoinGecko crypto gainers and losers. Returns normalized rows from CoinGecko's public crypto gainers and losers table. This endpoint supports the documented vs_currency enum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Rows per section to return, default 20, 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?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It adds useful context by stating the data comes from a 'public' table and that rows are 'normalized', implying a read operation with a structured response. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or the exact response shape, leaving some 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. The first sentence is a bit redundant with the second, but the second adds the 'normalized rows' and 'public table' details zoo. The overall structure is efficient with no wasteful prose.
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?
While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, there is no output schema and the description does not specify the structure of the returned rows (e.g., whether it returns both gainers and losers sections, or what fields are included). The description is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the response shape, warranting a middle score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents both parameters fully (limit with default/max, vs_currency with enum). The description adds minimal semantic value by merely referencing the vs_currency enum; it does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns crypto gainers and losers data from a specific public table, using a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like coingecko_markets or coingecko_trending, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or related tools. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.