CoinGecko MCP Server

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It mentions 'top pools' which implies ranking/sorting, but doesn't explain ranking criteria, pagination behavior, or what 'top' means. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but adds only basic operational 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It uses bold formatting effectively to highlight key elements. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary preamble. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints or usage context.

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 read-only query tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about result format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how it differs from similar pool/token tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more guidance about what to expect in return.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters well. The description mentions 'token contract address' and 'network' which map to required parameters, but adds no additional semantic context about format, validation, or relationships between parameters. It doesn't explain what 'top pools' means in relation to the sort parameter or how results are filtered/ranked.

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: 'query top pools based on the provided token contract address on a network'. It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('top pools'), and key inputs (token address, network). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pools_networks_onchain_info' or 'get_search_onchain_pools', which appear to have overlapping functionality.

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. With many sibling tools related to pools, tokens, and networks, there's no indication of when this specific 'top pools' query is appropriate versus other pool or token information tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is mentioned.

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