Fetch real-time cryptocurrency quotes to monitor live prices, trading volumes, and price changes across digital assets. Supports informed market analysis and trading decisions.
Access real-time cryptocurrency quotes with the FMP Full Cryptocurrency Quotes API. Track live prices, trading volumes, and price changes for a wide range of digital assets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| short | No | Whether to use short format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and freshness profile is covered. The description adds that quotes are real-time and enumerates the fields exposed (price, volume, change), which is useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about symbol coverage, batching, or rate limits.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences naming the capability and the data returned, with no filler. Minor vendor boilerplate ('with the FMP Full Cryptocurrency Quotes API') that adds little for an agent.
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?
For a zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never resolves the ambiguity with its many crypto quote siblings or explains what 'short' produces.
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 single 'short' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description never mentions the short/full format distinction, missing an opportunity to clarify its only knob.
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 (access real-time cryptocurrency quotes) and names the data returned (prices, volume, price changes). However, it does not distinguish this from near-identical siblings like getCryptocurrencyQuote, getCryptocurrencyShortQuote, or getCryptocurrencyBatchQuotes, leaving the agent unsure which endpoint to pick.
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 guidance on when to use this versus getCryptocurrencyQuote or getCryptocurrencyShortQuote, and no explanation of when the 'short' option applies despite a dedicated sibling existing for short quotes. The agent must infer selection from name similarity alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.