similar_coinsCoins related to the given coin by category/sector similarity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max related coins to return, default 10 | |
| coinId | Yes | Canonical coin id to find related coins for (e.g. "bitcoin") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coins | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / coinId / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical coin id to find related coins for (e.g. \"bitcoin\")"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Max related coins to return, default 10"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "coins": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Canonical coin ID (e.g. `bitcoin`)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "marketCap": {
+ "description": "Market cap in USD",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Human-readable name (e.g. `Bitcoin`)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "price": {
+ "description": "Current spot price in USD",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "rank": {
+ "description": "Market cap rank (1 = largest)",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "symbol": {
+ "description": "Trading symbol (e.g. `btc`)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "symbol",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "coins"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive; description adds that similarity is based on category/sector, which provides extra behavioral context but no details on auth, rate limits, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with key purpose. Every word earns its place.
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 (2 params, output schema exists), the description sufficiently explains the similarity criterion. Minor gap: no mention of default limit (10) beyond schema.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters; description does not add meaning beyond what schema already provides, so baseline score is appropriate.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'find related coins' and resource 'coins by similarity', clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'get_coin' (single coin) or 'list_coins' (all coins).
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?
Description implies use for finding similar coins but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'top_coins' or 'coin_history', nor provides exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of cryptocurrency data: coin metadata, prices, rates (current, historical, changes), earn products, market summaries, stablecoin analysis, and symbol resolution. The detailed descriptions clearly differentiate even similar tools like get_price and get_price_by_symbol, or get_rates and list_earn_products.
All names use snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verb_noun (get_coin, list_coins, resolve_symbol), some are noun_noun (coin_history, fear_greed_index, market_summary), and some include 'by' for parameters. This mix is readable but could be more consistent.
With 21 tools, the server covers a broad domain of cryptocurrency data without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is appropriate for a comprehensive data API.
The tool set covers nearly all expected operations for a crypto data server: coin listing, metadata, prices, historical data, rates, yield products, market stats, top coins, stablecoin analysis, and symbol resolution. No obvious gaps are present for the stated focus on price, rate, and yield data.