claw-mcp-toolkit

crypto_search

Search for cryptocurrency information by name or symbol to identify digital assets and retrieve their details.

Instructions

Search for a cryptocurrency by name or symbol

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search query (e.g. 'sol' or 'chainlink')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it fails to describe the return format (array of matches? single object?), pagination limits, partial matching behavior, or error cases when no match is found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single-sentence description is appropriately sized, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the input side. However, with no output schema provided, it lacks essential information about what search results are returned (e.g., symbol, ID, market cap), leaving a gap in contextual completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear example ('sol' or 'chainlink'). The description adds value by clarifying that the query can be either a 'name' or 'symbol', confirming the dual input types implied by the schema examples, meeting the baseline for well-documented schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

The description provides a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('cryptocurrency') with specific scope ('by name or symbol'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this discovery tool from siblings like `crypto_price` or `crypto_trending`, which could confuse the agent about whether this returns prices, IDs, or metadata.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 versus alternatives like `crypto_price` (which likely requires an exact symbol) or `crypto_trending`. It should explicitly state that this is for resolving names to symbols before calling price lookup tools.

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