CoinCap MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves a list with prices and market data, but it doesn't cover critical aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and additional details about parameters following. It consists of two sentences that efficiently convey key information without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with three optional parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on behavioral traits and return values, which are essential for the agent to use the tool effectively. This results in a baseline adequacy score.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by summarizing the optional filtering capabilities ('filter by search term, limit results, or offset for pagination'), but it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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: 'Get a list of cryptocurrency assets with their current prices and market data.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('cryptocurrency assets'), and key attributes ('current prices and market data'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_asset_by_id' or 'get_markets', which would require a 5.

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 through optional filtering parameters ('You can optionally filter by search term, limit results, or offset for pagination'), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_asset_by_id' for single assets or 'get_markets' for market-specific data. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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