CryptoQuant MCP Server

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 retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes beyond 'parameter values', such as response formats, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, with no wasted content.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information'. It doesn't explain what the return values include beyond 'parameter values', such as metadata or examples. For a tool with complexity in its output (implied by 'detailed'), this lack of context leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect from the invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'endpoint' documented as 'API endpoint path to get information about'. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used to specify which endpoint, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema states. 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.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific API endpoint'), including what information is provided ('available parameter values'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'discover_endpoints' (which likely lists endpoints) and 'describe_metric' (which focuses on metrics). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'query_data', which might also involve endpoints.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing to know the endpoint path, or exclusions, like not being for listing endpoints (which 'discover_endpoints' might handle). There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references, leaving usage context implied at best.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.