CoinPaprika MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

getTags

Retrieve all cryptocurrency tags (categories) with ID, name, coin count, and ICO count. Use to browse market sectors or find a tagId for detailed info.

Instructions

List all CoinPaprika tags (categories such as 'defi', 'stablecoin', 'memecoin', 'ai') used to group coins, returned as a list with each tag's id, name, coin_counter and ico_counter. Use for 'what crypto categories exist', 'list market sectors', or to find a tagId before calling getTagById. For the coins inside one tag use getTagById. Read-only. Params: additionalFields (optional, default none) is a comma-separated list of extra sections per tag, valid values 'coins' and 'icos' (example 'coins,icos'; omit for just summaries); limit (optional, default 50, max 250) caps how many tags return. No API key required.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "getTags"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of tags to return (default: 50, max: 250)
`additionalFields`	No	Comma-separated additional fields (e.g., coins,icos)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description explicitly says 'Read-only' and details parameter behavior (valid values for additionalFields, limit range). No contradictions.

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?

The description is efficient and front-loaded with main purpose. It includes all necessary details without excessive verbosity, though slightly long.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema, but description explains return fields (id, name, coin_counter, ico_counter). Covers parameters, use cases, and distinction from sibling. Complete for a list tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining valid values for additionalFields ('coins','icos') and noting limit cap (max 250).

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'List all CoinPaprika tags' with examples of categories. It distinguishes from the sibling tool getTagById by specifying that getTagById is for coins inside a tag.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'for ''what crypto categories exist'', ''list market sectors'', or to find a tagId before calling getTagById.' Also states when not to use: 'For the coins inside one tag use getTagById.'

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