Crypto Price 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'latest price' but does not specify data sources, update frequency, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid coin names), or authentication needs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. It avoids redundancy, though the example in the parameter description is helpful and not wasteful.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral details, it lacks guidance on usage versus siblings and operational constraints, making it incomplete for optimal agent decision-making.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'coin_name: str = The name of the coin (e.g. Bitcoin).' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and provides an example, which is valuable beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, it does not detail constraints like case sensitivity or supported coin names.

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 latest price for a coin by its name.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('latest price'), and key constraint ('by its name'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_crypto_price_by_symbol' in the description text itself, though the naming implies a distinction.

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 its sibling 'get_crypto_price_by_symbol.' It mentions the parameter 'coin_name' but does not explain when to prefer name-based lookup over symbol-based lookup, nor does it address prerequisites, error cases, or alternative scenarios.

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