price_multiCurrent crypto spot prices from CoinDesk Data (formerly CryptoCompare) for many coins at once (fsyms) quoted in many symbols (tsyms), aggregated across major exchanges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| e | No | ||
| sign | No | ||
| fsyms | Yes | ||
| 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: +[
+ {
+ "fsyms": "BTC,ETH",
+ "tsyms": "USD,EUR"
+ },
+ {
+ "fsyms": "BTC,ETH,XRP",
+ "tsyms": "USD"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "description": "Multi-coin price response",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a behavioral detail—'aggregated across major exchanges'—which clarifies that prices are aggregated rather than from a single source. No contradictions with 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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and uses parentheses to clarify parameter meanings. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary details.
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?
The description provides sufficient context for the tool's functionality—what it does, the data source, and aggregation behavior. It does not explain return values, but since an output schema is present, this is acceptable. The description is complete for its simple purpose.
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 required parameters 'fsyms' and 'tsyms' by mapping them to 'many coins' and 'many symbols'. It does not clarify optional parameters like 'e', 'sign', or 'extraParams', but these are not required and the main meaning is conveyed.
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 function: retrieving current crypto spot prices for multiple coins (fsyms) and multiple quote symbols (tsyms), aggregated from major exchanges. It is specific and distinguishes from a single-price tool by emphasizing 'many coins at once'.
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 usage for scenarios requiring multiple coin prices in multiple currencies, as indicated by 'many coins at once' and 'many symbols'. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like a single-price tool, though the context makes the intended use clear.
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.