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 gets the 'latest price,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. delayed), rate limits, error handling for invalid symbols, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 highly concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the 'Args' section efficiently documents the parameter with an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases, and it doesn't guide usage relative to siblings. With no annotations, it should provide more context to be fully complete for safe invocation.

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 description adds valuable semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'coin_symbol' is a string representing the coin symbol (e.g., BTC), providing a concrete example that clarifies usage. Since the schema lacks descriptions, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid symbol formats or case sensitivity.

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 symbol.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('latest price'), and method ('by its symbol'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_crypto_price_by_name' (e.g., by noting that this uses symbols like BTC vs. names like Bitcoin), which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_crypto_price_by_name' or explain scenarios where using a symbol is preferred over a name (e.g., for brevity or standard ticker formats). Without such context, users might struggle to choose between tools.

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