priceCurrent crypto spot price from CoinDesk Data (formerly CryptoCompare): one coin (fsym) quoted in many fiat or crypto symbols (tsyms), aggregated across major exchanges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| e | No | ||
| fsym | Yes | ||
| sign | No | ||
| tsyms | Yes | ||
| extraParams | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "fsym": "BTC",
+ "tsyms": "USD,EUR"
+ },
+ {
+ "e": "Kraken",
+ "fsym": "ETH",
+ "tsyms": "USD"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "description": "Current price response with requested currency pairs",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about aggregation across major exchanges and the data source (CoinDesk Data), which is useful. It doesn't contradict annotations. It provides some additional behavioral insight beyond the annotations.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key parameters without fluff. It is front-loaded and to the point, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
For a read-only spot price tool with a rich output schemaasi, the description covers the essential use case (one coin, many quotes, aggregated source). It omits details on optional parameters (e, sign, extraParams), but those are likely less critical for basic usage. The presence of an output schema fills in return value details. Overall, it is adequate for a simple tool.
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 explains the primary parameters fsym (one coin) and tsyms (many symbols), but does not explain the optional parameters e, sign, or extraParams. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for all parameters, but it only covers two out of five. The meaning of the remaining parameters is left ambiguous.
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 fetches current crypto spot price for one coin (fsym) quoted in multiple currencies (tsyms), with a specific data source (CoinDesk Data). It distinguishes from price_multi (likely for multiple coins) implicitly, but it doesn't explicitly name exact alternatives like price_full or price_multi.
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 it's for a single coin with multiple quote symbols, and that the price is aggregated. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like price_multi or price_full, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.
Several tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, its beta, and grounded variants, the six polymarket_* tools, and the three price endpoints (price, price_full, price_multi) can be confused despite distinct purposes. Long descriptions provide some disambiguation, but an agent must read carefully to select the correct tool.
Tool names mostly follow snake_case with verb_noun or noun_noun patterns (all_coins, compare_entities, top_market_cap), and related families share clear prefixes (histo_*, polymarket_*). Minor deviations exist (bare verbs like remember/forget, brand names like ask_pipeworx), but the overall pattern is readable and consistent.
With 46 tools, the server is far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and nearly double the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. Many tools are unrelated to the server's apparent crypto purpose (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, memory helpers), making it feel like a general-purpose utility rather than a focused data service.
The crypto data surface is fairly complete (spot, historical, top lists, news, social stats, exchange metadata), and the Pipeworx meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile) cover a broad range of factual queries. However, there are notable gaps: no direct way to fetch pipeworx:// citation URIs, and no advanced crypto order-book/trade endpoints, leaving some workflows as dead ends.