Retrieve normalized CoinGecko gainers and losers. Specify quote currency and row limit to get top crypto movers in structured JSON.
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.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'normalized rows' which is vague. No info on sorting, pagination, data freshness, or rate limits. The tool's behavior regarding the two gainer/loser sections is unclear, and the output format is not described.
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 compact with two concise sentences. It avoids redundancy and gets directly to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from parameter hints, but overall it is efficient with no wasted words.
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?
For a tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits output format, sorting, and any prerequisites. The agent lacks enough context to confidently choose this tool over similar ones, making it incomplete for effective decision-making.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by noting that vs_currency supports a 'documented enum', which hints at valid values beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on limit or provide examples, so it only modestly enhances schema info.
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 from CoinGecko. The name 'coingecko_gainers_losers' and first sentence convey the core function. It distinguishes from siblings like coingecko_trending or coingecko_markets by focusing on gainers/losers, though not explicitly excluding other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as coingecko_trending or coingecko_markets. There is no mention of when not to use it or what context suits it best. The description simply describes what it does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.