crypto-deep-research

by alikula37

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

resolve_coin

Resolve a cryptocurrency symbol or name to its CoinGecko ID, enabling accurate market data lookups and analysis.

Instructions

Sembol veya isimden coin kimligini (CoinGecko id) cozer.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_coin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about ambiguity handling (e.g., multiple coins matching 'BTC'), error behavior for unknown queries, or rate limits against CoinGecko. This is a meaningful gap for a resolver whose whole job is mapping fuzzy input to a canonical id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a one-parameter lookup tool. It is efficient, though an additional clause about ambiguity or failure behavior would have earned its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a simple 1-param resolver, the definition is minimally viable but omits the ambiguity and not-found behavior that determines whether the agent can safely act on the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add useful meaning by stating that the query accepts a symbol or a name, which is exactly the semantic the bare string-typed schema lacks. However, it gives no format examples or constraints on either input form.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: resolving a coin's identity (CoinGecko id) from either a symbol or a name. That is concrete and actionable. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling, though none of the listed siblings (list_analyses, get_market_snapshot, etc.) perform resolution, so the risk of confusion is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what to do when resolution is ambiguous or fails. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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

Deploy Server