Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond this. It specifies the source (Coinlore Free API), update frequency (real-time), and details about the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation for audit). This enhances transparency about data freshness, reliability, and auditability, which annotations do not cover.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional details about the source and return format. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies source and updates, and the third explains the output structure. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update behavior, and output format in detail. With annotations handling safety and idempotency, and an output schema likely defining the return structure, the description fills all necessary gaps, providing a comprehensive understanding for the agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate. It earns a baseline of 4 because it effectively compensates by providing context about the tool's operation and output, ensuring the agent understands how to invoke it correctly without parameter confusion.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('global cryptocurrency market statistics'), and source ('Coinlore'), making the purpose specific and clear. It distinguishes from sibling crypto tools by specifying the exact data source and type of statistics (global market stats), unlike tools like 'crypto__blockchain-stats' or 'crypto__coinpaprika' which might focus on different aspects or sources.

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: for real-time global cryptocurrency market statistics from Coinlore. It mentions the source and update frequency, which helps in decision-making. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when other crypto tools might be more appropriate for different data types or sources.

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