Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

crypto_coin_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves historical cryptocurrency price data from CoinGecko by coin ID and date (DD-MM-YYYY) for backtesting, market analysis, or tracking past values.

Instructions

Get historical price data for a cryptocurrency from CoinGecko.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_coin_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
dateYesDD-MM-YYYY

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the CoinGecko data source, but does not disclose rate limits, supported date ranges, price currency, or granularity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter lookup tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable but leaves important gaps: CoinGecko id format, whether the returned price is in USD, and what shape the historical data takes. These omissions could lead to incorrect invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%: the date parameter has a DD-MM-YYYY format, but the id parameter is undocumented. The description does not clarify that id should be a CoinGecko coin identifier (e.g., 'bitcoin') rather than a symbol, which is a critical ambiguity.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('historical price data for a cryptocurrency') and names the external source, CoinGecko. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as crypto_daily, crypto_price, or crypto_coin, so an agent must infer which historical tool is appropriate.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus crypto_daily, crypto_price, or crypto_coin, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Only the word 'historical' implicitly signals the context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools