Get institutional ECN calibrated spreads, round-turn commissions, M1 ATR, spread-to-ATR execution cost ratios across M1-H1, scalping suitability, and live MT5 FVGs for XAUUSD, BTCUSD, NAS100, US30, US500, GER40, JPN225, USOUSD, EURUSD, GBPUSD, USDJPY ($0.01 USDC on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Optional ticker like XAUUSD, NAS100, BTCUSD, US30, GER40, USOUSD, EURUSD | |
| paymentSignature | No | Optional x402 v2 base64 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions a cost ('$0.01 USDC on Base') and live data, but does not explain payment requirements, whether reads are safe, rate limits, or what happens if paymentSignature is omitted.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with dense but relevant information. It avoids repetition and clearly leads with the primary action, though the long metric list makes it somewhat hard to parse.
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?
For a complex market-data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the metrics and symbol universe but leaves gaps around payment flow, optional-parameter behavior, and output structure. It is adequate but not fully complete for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters. The description adds context by listing supported symbols and the USDC payment cost, but does not add syntax or clarify default behavior when symbol is omitted.
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 names a specific verb, 'Get', and a detailed resource: institutional ECN spreads, commissions, ATR, execution cost ratios, scalping suitability, and live MT5 FVGs for a listed set of symbols. It is very clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_ict_sessions.
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 lists what data is returned and for which symbols, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the metric list.
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.