CoinCap MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with relevant examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential response formats, error handling, or usage constraints. While the purpose is clear, the lack of behavioral and output context leaves significant gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with examples. The description repeats the same examples but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and target resource ('about a specific cryptocurrency asset by its ID'), with examples provided ('bitcoin', 'ethereum', 'cardano'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_assets (which likely lists multiple assets) and get_markets/get_rates (which focus on different data types).

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 implies usage when you need detailed information for a specific asset ID, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_assets (for listing) or get_rate_by_id (for exchange rates). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection context.

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