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'. The description adds context about querying 'latest pools', implying a time-based or recency filter, but doesn't specify behavioral details like pagination handling (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, it adds some value but lacks rich behavioral disclosure.

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. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., clarify 'latest'). Every part earns its place, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint) and moderate schema coverage (75%), but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or how 'latest' is defined, leaving gaps in completeness for a query tool with multiple parameters.

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 75%, with clear descriptions for 'include', 'include_gt_community_data', and 'page', but 'network' lacks a description. The tool description mentions 'based on provided network', adding minimal context for the required parameter. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant added value.

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 all the latest pools based on provided network', which provides a verb ('query') and resource ('latest pools') with a network constraint. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pools_networks_onchain_info' or 'get_pools_onchain_megafilter', leaving the scope vague regarding what makes these pools 'latest' versus other pool-related 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions querying 'latest pools' but doesn't specify criteria like time recency, newness, or how it differs from other pool-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'get_pools_networks_onchain_info' or 'get_search_onchain_pools', leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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