Skip to main content
Glama

orbitx_get_ath · Orbitx

orbitx__orbitx_get_ath
Read-only

All-time-high price and market cap for a token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYes
authCodeNoOrbitX authCode from the dashboard paste message or orbitx_auth_link. After auth, pass this on every tool call (required for Grok). Auth contract: signing tools (backend-signed trades, launches, burns, NFT mints) accept EITHER a valid authCode OR an authenticated session (OAuth/API-key bearer from a linked chat). The 5-minute auto-fill sweep and other server-side jobs run under their own internal credential — they never take an authCode. An authCode is sufficient but not the only accepted credential; a missing/invalid credential is rejected, never silently trusted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / authCode / description
      Previous value: -"OrbitX authCode from the dashboard paste message or orbitx_auth_link. After auth, pass this on every tool call (required for Grok)."New value: +"OrbitX authCode from the dashboard paste message or orbitx_auth_link. After auth, pass this on every tool call (required for Grok). Auth contract: signing tools (backend-signed trades, launches, burns, NFT mints) accept EITHER a valid authCode OR an authenticated session (OAuth/API-key bearer from a linked chat). The 5-minute auto-fill sweep and other server-side jobs run under their own internal credential — they never take an authCode. An authCode is sufficient but not the only accepted credential; a missing/invalid credential is rejected, never silently trusted."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • addedInput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
      +  "authCode": {
      +    "description": "OrbitX authCode from the dashboard paste message or orbitx_auth_link. After auth, pass this on every tool call (required for Grok).",
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "mint": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  }
      +}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "mint"
      +]
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete data returned (ATH price and market cap), but does not disclose units, time period, potential failure modes, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to communicating the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description states what data is returned and implies the input (a token). Annotations cover the read-only nature. The only minor gap is that the mint parameter could be explicitly documented, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major deficiency.

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 50%: authCode has a detailed description, but mint has none. The description does not explain the mint parameter or its format, leaving the agent to infer it is a token mint address. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

The description identifies the resource (all-time-high price and market cap) and the object (a token), which is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like orbitx_get_token or orbitx_get_chart. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', which costs one point.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as orbitx_get_token or orbitx_get_chart. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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.