trending_categories
Hot crypto categories ranked by market cap change. $0.01.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| api_key | Yes |
CryptoData API
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses ranking by market cap change and a Cost hint ($0.01), but lacks details on output format, limit behavior, or side effects. With no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key purpose. Efficient but could be slightly more structured without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no parameter descriptions, and only minimal behavior details. Does not explain return format, pagination, or error scenarios, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and description adds no explanation for parameters 'api_key' or 'limit'. Only the default of 10 provides some clue, but incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Hot crypto categories ranked by market cap change', specifying the resource and ranking criterion. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_categories' which likely lists all categories without ranking, though explicit differentiation is missing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_categories' or other category tools. Context of use is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools generally have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between price history tools (get_ohlc vs get_price_summary) and meme-related tools (analyze vs scan vs trending). Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_price, set_price_alert, analyze_contract). No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count3/5
48 tools is on the higher side, but it covers a broad spectrum of crypto data (prices, DeFi, sentiment, alerts, etc.) and each tool seems justified. However, the count could be slimmed down by grouping similar functions.
Completeness4/5
Very comprehensive coverage of crypto data: prices, market stats, DeFi, sentiment, gas, alerts, portfolio, arbitrage, token analysis. Minor gaps like NFT data or direct exchange rate queries.