Bitcoin-MCP-Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns exactly 15 items ('top 15'), includes specific metrics (e.g., price, market cap), and outputs data in string format. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, data freshness, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of return metrics and clear use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse and understand the tool's functionality.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (returns detailed metrics for 15 items), the description provides complete context: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what data it returns. With an output schema available, the description doesn't need to detail return values further, and the lack of parameters is handled by the schema. This is sufficient for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on output details. It earns a 4 (not 5) because it could briefly note the lack of parameters, but this is a minor omission given the schema's completeness.

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's purpose: 'get the top 15 trending cryptocurrencies sorted by the most popular user searches on CoinGecko.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('trending cryptocurrencies'), and scope ('top 15'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_trending_categories or get_trending_nfts by focusing on coins rather than other asset types.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines: 'Use cases: When you need to discover what cryptocurrencies are currently attracting the most attention, identify emerging trends, or find coins gaining popularity.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool, helping the agent differentiate it from alternatives like get_bitcoin_market_data or get_cryptomarket_overview.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.