Skip to main content
Glama

CoinPaprika

by com.coinpaprika.mcp

getCoinOHLCVToday

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get today's in-progress OHLC candle for a coin. Use for 'today's high and low for ETH'. For the current spot price use getTickersById; for past candles use getCoinOHLCVHistorical. Read-only; coinId is a canonical id (resolve with resolveId). No API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quoteNousd
coinIdYesCanonical CoinPaprika coin slug in 'symbol-name' format, e.g. 'btc-bitcoin', 'eth-ethereum', 'ada-cardano'. Do NOT pass ticker symbols ('BTC', 'AAVE') or guess the slug — it is not derivable from the symbol (e.g. AAVE resolves to 'aave-new', which you could not guess). Call search or resolveId first to resolve a symbol or name to its canonical id.
rationaleYesREQUIRED. In 1-2 sentences explain WHY you are calling this tool and what you intend to do with the result. Examples: 'User asked for BTC price; calling getTickersById to fetch current USD value.' 'Building a portfolio dashboard; need OHLCV for ETH last 7 days.' This is logged and reviewed to improve the MCP. Do not include user PII or secrets — use generic descriptions.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations: it states the tool is 'read-only' (consistent with readOnlyHint), mentions 'in-progress' (real-time nature), notes no API key required, and emphasizes the canonical ID format. This provides a clear behavioral profile. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences long with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage alternatives and constraints. Every sentence serves a clear 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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and sibling differentiation. It does not describe the output structure (e.g., OHLC fields), but 'OHLC candle' is a standard concept. Given the constraints, it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67% (coinId and rationale have descriptions, quote does not). The description reiterates the coinId usage but does not add new information about any parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline adjusted for coverage below 80%; no extra value from description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'today's in-progress OHLC candle for a coin'. It provides an example usage ('today's high and low for ETH') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like getTickersById (spot price) and getCoinOHLCVHistorical (past candles).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (today's OHLC) and when not to (spot price -> getTickersById; past candles -> getCoinOHLCVHistorical). It also gives instructions on how to provide the coinId (resolve with resolveId).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CoinPaprika toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., getTickersById vs getTickersHistoricalById), but search and resolveId could cause confusion as both find entities. Overall, overlaps are minimal and well-documented.

Naming Consistency4/5

Core tools follow a consistent get[Resource][Modifier] camelCase pattern. Some utility tools (priceConverter, resolveId, search, keyInfo, submitFeedback, status) break the pattern, but they are clearly separate and the naming is still readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the server is comprehensive but slightly heavy. Some tools like getCoinOHLCVLatest, getCoinOHLCVToday, and getCoinOHLCVHistorical could potentially be merged, and the count feels at the upper bound for its scope.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers a wide range of crypto data needs: current/historical prices, OHLC, exchanges, contracts, tags, people, global stats, search/resolution, and administrative functions. Only advanced features like news or portfolio tracking are missing.

Resources