DepthFeed

bars

Read-only

OHLCV price bars for US equities and ETFs, Binance spot pairs, and perpetual futures. One minute is the finest resolution; 5Min, 15Min, 1Hour and 1Day are rolled up from it and say so with derived. Spell a crypto pair the way the venue does (BTCUSDT, not BTC) and a perpetual with a .P suffix (BTCUSDT.P) — spot and perp are different instruments at different prices. BTCU, ETHU and WLDU are each both a US ETF and a Binance pair, and resolve to the equity — pass venue=binance to reach the pair instead. Optional venue selects the market explicitly: us-equities, binance (spot) or binance-futures (perpetuals). Bounded by the same plan history window as every other read (403 HISTORY_LIMIT_EXCEEDED past it); the plan also sets how many symbols one request may carry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`symbols`	Yes	Comma-separated symbols, e.g. "AAPL,BTCUSDT,BTCUSDT.P". 3 per request on Explorer, 8 Quant, 16 Research, 32 Desk.
`end_time`	No	End of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window.
`timeframe`	No	1Min (default), 5Min, 15Min, 1Hour or 1Day.
`start_time`	No	Start of time as ms-epoch or ISO-8601. History is clamped to your plan's window.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds critical behavioral context: plan history window bounding, 403 HISTORY_LIMIT_EXCEEDED error, per-request symbol limits, resolution roll-up and 'derived' flag, and spot/perp venue resolution. This goes well 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but information-dense, covering asset classes, resolution rules, symbol ambiguity, venue selection, and plan limits. It opens with purpose and each sentence adds essential detail without repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, asset scope, resolution, symbol naming, venue disambiguation, history limits, and symbol count. It does not explicitly describe the output format, but OHLCV bars imply the return structure, and the 'derived' flag hints at response contents. The missing venue parameter in the schema is a notable gap, but overall the tool is well-specified.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful symbol formatting examples and resolution semantics, but it also references an optional 'venue' parameter that is absent from the input schema. This discrepancy could mislead the agent into passing an invalid parameter, reducing the value of the additional meaning.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool returns OHLCV price bars for US equities/ETFs, Binance spot, and perpetual futures. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like kalshi_get_candles and polymarket_get_market, which serve other markets.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool via its asset scope and provides explicit symbol-naming conventions and venue disambiguation. However, it does not directly name alternative tools or state exclusions such as 'use this for equities/Binance, not for Kalshi/Polymarket'.

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

All DepthFeed tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, clearly separated by venue prefix (kalshi_, limitless_, polymarket_) and action (get_orderbook, get_snapshots, search_markets). The screener and whoami tools are unique and not overlapping with any other tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow the venue_verb_noun pattern (e.g., kalshi_get_orderbook, polymarket_get_snapshots). However, polymarket_all_markets uses 'all' instead of a verb, and screener/whoami deviate entirely from the pattern, causing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools covering three venues plus cross-venue and session info, the count is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear role without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core data retrieval operations (orderbook, snapshots, search, single market) for all venues. Missing are update/delete operations but those are outside the data provider scope. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated 'get_market' for Kalshi and Limitless, though search_markets provides similar info.

Resources

Need Help?