CoinGecko MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'query' (implying a read operation). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as not mentioning rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. Since annotations cover the safety aspect, the bar is lower, but the description could have provided more operational details (e.g., query limits or data freshness).

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 front-loads the core purpose ('query multiple pools'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly listing key parameters). Overall, it's appropriately sized and clear.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and annotations (readOnlyHint only), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on output, error handling, or usage context. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent use.

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 description coverage is 60%, with three parameters (include, include_composition, include_volume_breakdown) having descriptions, while network and addresses lack descriptions. The description mentions 'network and pool address' but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the moderate coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate but doesn't worsen the gap, aligning with the baseline.

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 states the tool 'allows you to query multiple pools based on the provided network and pool address,' which clarifies the action (query) and resource (pools). However, it's somewhat vague about what 'query' entails (e.g., retrieving data vs. performing analysis) and doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pools_networks_onchain_info' or 'get_search_onchain_pools,' leaving room for ambiguity.

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 mentions the parameters (network and addresses) but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for batch queries or how it differs from other pool-related tools in the sibling list, offering minimal context for selection.

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