Rank cryptocurrencies by market cap or volume, and identify gainers and losers in the result set. Fetch a sorted list in a chosen currency for market tracking.
Top cryptocurrencies by market cap or volume, with gainers/losers among the result set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | market_cap_desc | |
| vs_currency | No | usd |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a useful behavioral trait beyond the schema: the returned set includes gainers/losers. However, it does not describe the response item shape, whether gainers/losers are separate groupings or computed fields, or other runtime behavior such as defaulting or currency handling.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose first, then the ordering dimensions, then the gainers/losers feature. Every part earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the result list contains or how 'gainers/losers' is represented. It does not specify the response shape, the effect of `vs_currency`, or how the result set is structured. The sibling-tool list is present but not used in the description to clarify boundaries, leaving the definition below the minimum for confident 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 compensate. It adds some meaning for the `order` parameter by mentioning 'market cap or volume' and hints at limiting via 'top', but it never explains `vs_currency`, and it does not explicitly clarify that `limit` controls the number of results. The schema's enum values and defaults help, but the description only partially covers the parameters.
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?
The description names the resource ('cryptocurrencies') and the selection criteria ('top by market cap or volume'), and adds a distinguishing feature ('gainers/losers among the result set'). It is clear that this is a market-ranking/list tool, unlike `get_price` or `search_coin`, though it does not explicitly call out sibling differences.
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?
The intended use case is implied: users wanting top coins ranked by market cap or volume, or looking at gainers/losers within that set. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over `trending`, `compare_coins`, or `search_coin`, and no 'use when / use instead' exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.