List the top native cryptocurrencies by real market cap, filtering out stablecoins, wrapped or staked tokens, and tokenized securities or commodities. Set how many coins to return.
List the top N native cryptocurrencies by real market cap (stablecoins, wrapped/staked receipts, tokenized securities/RWA and commodities removed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many coins (1-500, default 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone. It usefully discloses the inclusion methodology (stablecoins, wrapped/staked receipts, tokenized securities/RWA and commodities excluded), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about ordering, tie-breaking, pagination, or how results are returned for a list tool.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the exclusion criteria compactly placed in a parenthetical. Every clause 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?
For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential ranking and filtering semantics. It is close to complete, though ordering behavior and what each entry contains are left unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented with its range and default in the schema. The description's 'top N' only restates the parameter's meaning, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('top N native cryptocurrencies') and even defines the ranking basis ('real market cap'). It does not explicitly name its siblings (get_coin, get_real_market_cap, market_brief), but the ranked-list framing makes it distinguishable from the single-coin lookup tools.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you need a ranked list of top coins rather than data on one coin. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the sibling tools that would clarify the boundary, so it remains inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.