CryptoDataAPI 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 describes what data is returned (macro indicators) and adds context about market correlations (e.g., dollar strength impact on crypto), which is useful beyond a basic read operation. However, it lacks details on data sources, update frequency, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and lists indicators, and the second provides market context. While informative, the second sentence could be more tightly integrated or omitted if not essential for tool selection. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality, but the market correlation details might be extraneous for concise tool invocation guidance.

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 (simple read operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It specifies what data is returned but doesn't detail the format (e.g., numerical values, timestamps) or potential errors. For a no-parameter tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in output clarification, especially without an output schema.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's output semantics by listing the indicators retrieved. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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: to retrieve macroeconomic indicators relevant to crypto markets, specifically listing EUR/USD exchange rate, gold price, and US treasury yields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on macroeconomic data rather than crypto-specific metrics like funding rates or market health. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the verb 'retrieve' or 'fetch,' though this is implied.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that the indicators are 'relevant to crypto markets' but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like get_market_health or get_fear_greed. The context about market correlations (e.g., dollar strength being bearish for crypto) is informative but doesn't translate into actionable usage instructions.

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