Fetch USD prices, market caps, 24h volume changes, and global market totals for selected coins, or use demo data. Provides the market snapshot for interactive HTML crypto reports.
Fetch USD prices, market caps, 24h volumes/changes and global market totals; or explicit demo data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | live | |
| coins | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. It discloses that demo data can be returned, but does not explain behavior like rate limits, caching, or the shape of response (though output schema exists). It does not contradict annotations since none exist.
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, concise, front-loads the main purpose (Fetch USD prices...). The mention of demo data is a bit tacked on at the end but acceptable. No wasted words.
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 only 2 parameters, no required params, and an output schema, the description is partially complete. It tells what data is fetched, but lacks guidance on parameter usage (mode, coins) and when to use demo. It's adequate for a simple fetch but leaves actionable gaps.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions the fields fetched and demo data, but does not explain the 'mode' parameter (how to select demo) or the 'coins' parameter (what it filters). The description adds little over the schema's enum and default.
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 clearly states the tool fetches market data (prices, caps, volumes, changes, global totals) for USD, and mentions demo data as an option. It does not mention the sibling tool 'build_crypto_market_html', so it doesn't distinguish itself from that sibling, but the purpose is specific and clear.
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 description implies two modes ('live' and 'demo') and that demo data is explicit, but it does not state when to use live vs demo or when to prefer this tool over the sibling. The context that this is about fetching raw data vs building HTML is implicit, but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.