Retrieve historical CoinMarketCap 100 Index values at 5-minute, 15-minute, or daily intervals for a chosen time range.
Get historical CoinMarketCap 100 Index values at a provider-supported interval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| interval | No | daily | |
| time_end | No | ||
| time_start | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It doesn't state whether time_start/time_end are required for meaningful results, what happens on out-of-range windows, rate limits, or auth needs. 'Provider-supported interval' is the only constraint hint.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero padding. Appropriately sized for a query tool with an output schema.
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?
With no annotations, 0% schema coverage on four params, and no output schema explanation, the description leaves critical gaps: time format, whether time bounds are required, and interval semantics. The output schema existing means return values needn't be explained, but input behavior is under-specified.
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 0% — four undocumented parameters (count, interval, time_end, time_start) with no titles beyond field names. The description only refers vaguely to 'provider-supported interval' and does not explain time format, whether start/end are required, or how count interacts with the window.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (historical CoinMarketCap 100 Index values) with the interval scoping qualifier. Siblings cmc_cmc20_historical and cmc_cmc100_latest make the '100' vs '20' and 'historical' vs 'latest' distinctions inferable from the name, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this over cmc_cmc100_latest or cmc_cmc20_historical. The 'provider-supported interval' phrase hints at constraints but doesn't name alternatives or conditions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.