get_market_historyReturns OHLC history for a fiat, gold, or crypto market. Days are clamped to 1-365.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Market code, such as USD, EMAMI, GOLD_GRAM, USDT, BTC. | |
| days | No | Number of days of history to return, from 1 to 365. | |
| assetType | Yes | Asset type: fiat, gold, or crypto. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| disclaimer | Yes | ||
| generatedAtUtc | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the clamping behavior ('Days are clamped to 1-365') and specifying OHLC return format, which are not covered by 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or vague language. 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 low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential purpose and the key clamping constraint, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that days are clamped to 1-365, which is a behavioral detail beyond the schema's simple range description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('OHLC history') with scope ('fiat, gold, or crypto market'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on latest rates and conversion.
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 clearly implies use for historical data by stating 'history', which contextually separates it from sibling tools like get_latest_fiat_rates. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 the market data domain: converting amounts, fetching current rates for different asset classes, retrieving historical data, and accessing rate sources. The clear differentiation between crypto, fiat, gold, and conversion prevents ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent get_/convert_ verb-noun snake_case pattern. The only deviation is convert_to_toman, which still fits the verb_object style and is distinguishable from the get_ family.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing Toman-denominated market data. Each tool covers a necessary function—rates for various asset classes, conversion, history, and source info—without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: current rates for crypto, fiat, and gold, conversion to Toman, historical OHLC data, and source comparison. No obvious gaps exist for a market data server focused on Iranian exchange rates.