Skip to main content
Glama

perp_markets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Available perp markets with price, open interest, funding, max leverage.

Legacy alias: while Drift is flagged off this returns the primary venue's markets (Jupiter Perps: SOL, ETH, BTC). Prefer perp_markets_all.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "perp_markets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caller_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is a legacy alias whose returned venue varies with the Drift flag. That conditional behavior is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the key routing guidance is in the first sentence. The line break mid-thought is slightly awkward but costs nothing in meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the resource, its fields, and the legacy-alias caveat, which is enough for a one-parameter listing tool. The only gap is the unexplained caller_id parameter.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (caller_id) is undocumented in both schema and description. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it says nothing about caller_id or whether it affects results.

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 names the resource (perp markets) and enumerates the fields returned (price, open interest, funding, max leverage), so an agent knows exactly what this call yields. It also names the sibling it duplicates (perp_markets_all), which differentiates it. The only slight weakness is that the listing verb is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the alternative ("Prefer perp_markets_all") and explains the condition under which this tool behaves differently ("while Drift is flagged off"). It does not state positively when this tool itself should be chosen over the alternative, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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.

Resources