Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-coinbase

mcp-coinbase

by markswendsen-code
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_wallet_address

Retrieve your Coinbase deposit address for a cryptocurrency by specifying its symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH).

Instructions

Get your Coinbase deposit address for a cryptocurrency. Requires COINBASE_EMAIL and COINBASE_PASSWORD environment variables.

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "get_wallet_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesCryptocurrency symbol to get deposit address for (e.g., "BTC", "ETH")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful requirement (COINBASE_EMAIL and COINBASE_PASSWORD environment variables) and the operation is inherently read-only based on the verb 'Get', but it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or return format. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no wasted content.

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 tool with a single well-described parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not describe the return value (e.g., address string format) or any error conditions. However, the purpose is clear and the complexity is low, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add extra detail beyond the schema; it only says 'for a cryptocurrency' while the schema already specifies the symbol parameter and examples. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 a Coinbase deposit address for a cryptocurrency, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio, get_transactions, or get_prices.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (when you need a deposit address) and provides a prerequisite (environment variables), but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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