coinglass_macro_snapshotReads bounded delta snapshots of crypto ETF flows, sentiment, and on-chain datasets with checkpoint tracking and operator-supplied license rights.
Read a bounded snapshot; license rights are supplied by the operator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| ticker | No | ||
| dataset | Yes | ||
| license_tag | Yes | ||
| source_checkpoint | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only two hints — that the result is "bounded" (scope-limited, but with no stated bound) and that license rights come "from the operator" (implying a required credential), neither of which is concrete enough to act on.
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?
A single semicolon-joined sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise and front-loaded. But the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficiency, leaving the clause about license rights without an actionable referent.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The remaining gaps — undocumented parameters and no usage routing — are penalized in their own dimensions.
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% and none of the five parameters (dataset, license_tag, mode, ticker, source_checkpoint) is explained. The critical ones — what license_tag must contain, what the const mode="delta" means, what source_checkpoint is for checkpointing — are invisible to the agent, and the description does nothing to compensate.
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?
"Read a bounded snapshot" gives a verb and a vague resource but never names what is being read (ETF flows, sentiment, on-chain) or what a "snapshot" contains. Against siblings like cmc_global_metrics or fred_series_observations, an agent has no basis to prefer this tool, and it largely restates the title "Coinglass Macro Snapshot."
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling covers overlapping macro data. The license clause reads as a constraint, not guidance, and leaves the agent to guess whether this is the right entry point for macro context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.