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 behavioral context by specifying the data source (CoinGecko), time frame (last 24 hours), and metric (search interest), which are not covered by annotations. However, it does not mention rate limits, freshness of data, or potential errors.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clarifying details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second explains the trending metric. There is no wasted text or repetition.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, with output schema), the description provides sufficient context on what it does and how it works. It covers the data source, time frame, and metric. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the output format or any limitations, though the output schema reduces this need.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and behavior without redundant parameter details, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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'), resource ('top 10 trending cryptocurrencies on CoinGecko'), and scope ('right now' and 'in the last 24 hours'). It distinguishes from siblings like crypto_top_coins by focusing on search interest trends rather than market cap or other metrics.

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 usage context ('trending' based on 'search interest in the last 24 hours'), which helps differentiate it from tools like crypto_price or crypto_top_coins. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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