Search for coins, exchanges, categories, and other crypto assets, returning normalized result sections from public site search.
CoinGecko discovery search. Returns normalized CoinGecko search sections from the public website search JSON. Empty valid searches return empty arrays.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query | |
| limit | No | Rows per section to return, default 10, max 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that empty valid searches return empty arrays but does not mention rate limits, authentication (assumed public), or what 'normalized' means. Minimal behavioral context.
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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.
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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on the structure of returned sections. It mentions 'normalized CoinGecko search sections' but does not clarify typical sections (coins, exchanges, etc.) or how results are organized, leaving some ambiguity.
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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters (q and limit). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as a search for CoinGecko discovery, using specific verbs ('search', 'returns') and resource ('CoinGecko search sections'). It distinguishes from the many sibling specific coingecko tools (e.g., coingecko_coin, coingecko_categories) by being a general discovery search, though it could be more explicit about which sections are included.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative coingecko tools. It does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for specific coin data, use coingecko_coin instead). This is a significant gap given the large set of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.