Retrieve a complete list of cryptocurrency exchanges for analysis and integration within the PCM MCP server, enabling streamlined reverse engineering and IDA Pro workflows.
List all available cryptocurrency exchanges
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all available cryptocurrency exchanges' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, or if the data is cached. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's 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 listing tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent doesn't know what format the exchange list comes in, whether authentication is required, or how to interpret the results. The description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps in understanding how to effectively use this tool.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. This earns a baseline 4 for parameter semantics as there's nothing to compensate for and no misleading parameter information.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available cryptocurrency exchanges'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-exchange-info' by focusing on listing rather than retrieving detailed information about a specific exchange. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools like 'get-markets'.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-exchange-info' (for detailed exchange information) and 'get-markets' (for listing markets rather than exchanges), the agent receives no help in choosing between these related tools. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.