CryptoDataAPI MCP Server

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 effectively describes what the tool returns (8 indicators with scores, interpretations, and zone classifications) and its purpose (long-term positioning and cycle-aware strategies). While it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, it provides substantial behavioral context for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core purpose and lists indicators, second describes the data format, third provides usage context. Every sentence adds value with zero redundant information. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context about what data is returned (8 specific indicators with score ranges, interpretations, and zone classifications) and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of information about return format/structure, but given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is largely complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a parameterless query tool.

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 all 8 BTC cycle indicators that help determine where Bitcoin is in its market cycle.' It specifies the exact indicators returned (MVRV Z-Score, NUPL, etc.) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_fear_greed or get_market_health, which provide different types of market data.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for long-term positioning and cycle-aware trading strategies.' This gives the agent guidance that this tool is for Bitcoin market cycle analysis rather than short-term metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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