Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the data source (Coinpaprika Free API), update frequency (real-time), and the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details), which are not captured in 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and source, and the second details the return format. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (implied by the return format description), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, leaving no significant gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'coinId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as more coin ID examples or clarification on global market data behavior.

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 ('Get cryptocurrency market data') and resources ('from Coinpaprika'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the data source (Coinpaprika) and data types (prices, volume, market cap), unlike other crypto tools like crypto__coinranking or crypto__blockchain-stats.

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 usage ('Get cryptocurrency market data... updates real-time') and implies when to use it (for Coinpaprika-sourced data), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling crypto tools.

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