CoinPaprika MCP Server

Official

by coinpaprika

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Hybrid

getTickerByContract

Retrieve current price and market data for a DeFi token using its contract address and blockchain platform ID.

Instructions

Get the current price and market data of a token by its contract address (for on-chain and DeFi tokens). Use when you have a contract address (0x...) rather than a name. For history use getHistoricalTickerByContract. Read-only; platformId is the chain (e.g. eth-ethereum) and contractAddress the token address. No API key required.

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": {
      "platformId": "<platformId>",
      "contractAddress": "<contractAddress>"
    },
    "name": "getTickerByContract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`platformId`	Yes	Platform ID (e.g., eth-ethereum)
`contractAddress`	Yes	Contract address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description states it is read-only and no API key required. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It could mention rate limits or data freshness, but it's sufficiently transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description hints at return data ('current price and market data') but doesn't detail fields. For a simple tool with 2 params, it's mostly complete.

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% with descriptions. The description adds an example for platformId (eth-ethereum) and clarifies the parameter roles, which is helpful but not essential.

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 the tool gets current price and market data by contract address. It distinguishes from sibling getHistoricalTickerByContract which is for history.

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 says 'Use when you have a contract address' and 'For history use getHistoricalTickerByContract'. Also mentions platformId and contractAddress roles and that no API key is required.

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