Query available conversion pairs and their minimum/maximum allowed amounts for source and destination tokens to validate crypto conversions before trading.
Query available conversion pairs (like BTC to USDT), and shows the minimum and maximum allowed amounts for both the source and destination tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toAsset | No | User receives coin | |
| fromAsset | No | User spends coin |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only query (using 'Query') and discloses the primary output (min/max amounts for source and destination). However, it does not mention behavior when no parameters are supplied, pagination, or any authentication requirements. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but lacks richer context.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and the key output. Every part adds value, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 simple query tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and main output. It does not explicitly explain filtering behavior when both parameters are provided, but this is easily inferred. Given the low complexity, it is fairly complete.
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 100%, with both fromAsset and toAsset having clear descriptions ('User spends coin' / 'User receives coin'). The tool description adds the context of 'source and destination tokens' but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.
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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and identifies the resource ('available conversion pairs') with an example (BTC to USDT). It also states the key output (min/max amounts for both tokens), clearly distinguishing it from sibling convert tools like quote requests or order management.
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 usage is implied: this tool is for discovering available conversion pairs and their amount limits. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, such as before placing a convert order or in contrast to other convert-related tools. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.