Get a Buy Now quote for a CoinSpot crypto purchase by setting the coin ticker, amount, and amount type (coin or AUD).
Get a Buy Now quote.
Args:
cointype: Coin ticker such as BTC.
amount: Amount to buy.
amounttype: Whether amount is 'coin' or 'aud'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| cointype | Yes | ||
| amounttype | No | coin |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing behavioral: a quote tool typically has a validity window / expiry and may require authenticated access, neither of which is disclosed.
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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a tight Args block; nothing is padded. The wording is slightly terse but no sentence is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a quote-generation tool the description omits the practically critical facts: whether the quote expires and how long it is valid, and whether authentication is required. With no annotations covering those, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: it explains cointype (ticker such as BTC), amount, and — importantly — that amounttype is 'coin' or 'aud', an enum the schema does not encode. Minor gap: no note that amounttype defaults to 'coin' or that it only matters for interpreting amount.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a Buy Now quote'), which separates it from quote_sell_now and quote_swap_now by name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_buy_price, leaving the agent to guess which one to call for pricing.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (get_buy_price, quote_sell_now, quote_swap_now) despite a crowded sibling set. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.