Open, high, low, close and volume candles from Binance spot (Bybit fallback). Intervals 1m to 1w, up to 500 candles. 0.002 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pair | Yes | Trading pair such as SOL-USDT | |
| limit | No | ||
| interval | No | 1m, 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1d or 1w | 1h |
| paymentProof | No | Payment proof: USDC tx hash on Polygon or Base (0x...) or Solana tx signature. Omit on the first call to receive the 402 payment instructions, pay, then call again with the proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations were provided, the description must carry the burden. It effectively communicates complex behavioral traits such as the exchange fallback (Binance to Bybit), the rate limit (up to 500 candles), and the transactional nature of the 'paymentProof' required for invocation.
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 definition is highly dense and efficient. It packs the function, source, scope, operational limits, and cost into a single, well-structured sentence without relying on filler.
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 is complete for a data retrieval tool. It covers the data type, the scope (timeframes/limits), and all necessary operational/cost constraints, which are the most relevant contextual details needed for the agent to execute the request successfully.
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 adds significant semantic meaning to the parameters, particularly explaining the highly specific and sequential lifecycle of the 'paymentProof' parameter (omitting it initially to receive instructions, then using the hash to proceed). This compensates for the 75% schema coverage.
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 tool name 'ohlcv' is immediately clarified by the description to provide 'Open, high, low, close and volume candles.' It clearly specifies the data being retrieved (candles) and the source (Binance spot).
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 provides critical usage context regarding operational cost ('0.002 USDC per call via x402') and data flow (Binance spot vs. Bybit fallback), giving the agent clear boundaries on when and how to use the tool.
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.