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. It discloses the return format ('symbol, name, market cap rank, and current price') which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention limitations like result count, pagination, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and returns, the second provides usage guidance. There is zero wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 simple search tool with one parameter (fully documented in schema) and no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains the purpose, return format, and usage relationship with another tool. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning any limitations (like max results) or error cases for full completeness.

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 parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain search matching rules, case sensitivity, or examples beyond those already in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 with specific verbs ('Search for cryptocurrencies') and resources ('by name or symbol'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning its role in finding symbols before calling get_coin_profile. It explicitly identifies what it does beyond just restating the name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to find the correct symbol for a coin before calling get_coin_profile'), naming a specific alternative (get_coin_profile) and clarifying the workflow relationship. This gives clear context for tool selection.

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