portfolio-mcp

get_trending_coins

Retrieves trending cryptocurrencies from CoinGecko to discover popular assets for analysis.

Instructions

Get trending cryptocurrencies from CoinGecko.

Returns a list of coins that are trending in the last 24 hours, useful for discovering popular assets to analyze.

Returns: Dictionary containing: - coins: List of trending coin info (id, name, symbol, rank) - fetched_at: ISO timestamp

Example: result = get_trending_coins() for coin in result['coins']: print(f"{coin['name']} ({coin['symbol']})")

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": "get_trending_coins"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.5Jan 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explains the read-only behavior of fetching trending data, including the return structure (coins, fetched_at). Without annotations, this adequately conveys the tool's behavior and side-effect-free nature.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a helpful example in just a few lines. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a parameterless tool with a simple output, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it. No additional information is necessary.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details as none are needed, meeting the baseline expectation for a no-parameter tool.

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 retrieves trending cryptocurrencies from CoinGecko, specifying the 24-hour timeframe. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_crypto_coins or list_crypto_symbols.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description notes the tool is 'useful for discovering popular assets to analyze', providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or alternatives, but the simplicity makes this less critical.

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