Skip to main content
Glama
QuantGeekDev

coincap-mcp

by QuantGeekDev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    Two tools (bitcoin_price and get_crypto_price) have overlapping purposes, both focused on fetching crypto prices, which creates ambiguity. The descriptions do not clearly differentiate them, making it likely an agent could misselect between them. The third tool (list_assets) is distinct, but the overlap between the first two significantly reduces clarity.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The naming is mixed, with two tools using a verb_noun pattern (get_crypto_price, list_assets) and one using a noun_verb pattern (bitcoin_price). While readable, this inconsistency in verb placement and specificity (bitcoin vs. crypto) deviates from a predictable convention. The patterns are not chaotic but lack uniformity.

    Tool Count3/5

    With 3 tools, the count is borderline thin for a crypto data server, as it may lack comprehensive coverage for common operations like historical data or multiple asset queries. However, it is reasonable for a minimal or focused scope, though it feels slightly under-scoped for typical crypto API use cases.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set has significant gaps for a crypto data domain, such as missing operations for historical price data, market cap info, volume, or specific asset details beyond listing. The overlap in price tools does not add functionality, and agents may struggle with incomplete workflows like tracking trends or comparing assets over time.

  • Average 3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'realtime' which hints at freshness, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, data sources, error handling, or what 'realtime' means operationally. It's minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, short sentence that's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it's slightly redundant ('on crypto') and could be more polished, but it earns its place efficiently.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or operational constraints. For a tool fetching real-time data, more context on behavior and output is needed.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' documented as 'Name of the crypto coin'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or valid coin names. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states the tool 'Get realtime crypto price on crypto' which identifies the verb ('get') and resource ('crypto price'), but it's vague about scope and duplicates 'crypto' awkwardly. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bitcoin_price' or 'list_assets'.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bitcoin_price' (specific to Bitcoin) or 'list_assets' (which might list multiple assets). The description implies real-time pricing but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all available crypto assets' but doesn't explain what 'available' means (e.g., supported by the API, currently tradable), whether it's a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the key information directly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage versus siblings, behavioral details like response format or constraints, and doesn't leverage the opportunity to provide more guidance. For a tool in a server with sibling tools, this is inadequate.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool where the schema fully covers the input structure.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all available crypto assets'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bitcoin_price' or 'get_crypto_price' which appear to be more specific price-fetching tools, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 the sibling tools ('bitcoin_price' and 'get_crypto_price'). It doesn't specify if this is for listing assets versus getting prices, or any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get realtime bitcoin price' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify data source, update frequency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Get' specifies the action, 'realtime' provides important temporal context, and 'bitcoin price' identifies the resource.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple price lookup tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with sibling tools that might overlap in functionality, more context about what makes this tool distinct would be beneficial. The description doesn't specify return format, currency, or data source.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the empty input schema is correctly documented.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bitcoin price'), and includes the qualifier 'realtime' which distinguishes it from historical or aggregated price tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_crypto_price' which might also provide bitcoin prices.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 like 'get_crypto_price' or 'list_assets'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

coincap-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

coincap-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/QuantGeekDev/coincap-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server