FinanceKit MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by detailing the comprehensive market data returned (e.g., 1h/24h/7d changes, ATH data, supply info) and specifying the data source (CoinGecko). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits or authentication needs, though annotations cover the safety aspect well.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details the returned data, and the third provides usage guidance. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key details.

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 moderate complexity, high schema coverage, presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, returned data, and parameter guidance, leaving no significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (coin and currency). The description reinforces the coin parameter semantics by specifying the format (CoinGecko ID) and referencing search_crypto for finding IDs, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get current price, market cap, volume, and price changes') and resource ('for a cryptocurrency'), distinguishing it from siblings like crypto_search (for finding IDs) and crypto_top_coins (for listing top coins). It precisely defines what data is returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool ('Get current price... for a cryptocurrency') and when to use an alternative ('Use search_crypto to find IDs'), providing clear guidance on tool selection. It also specifies the required parameter format (CoinGecko ID), which helps avoid misuse.

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