SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Coinbase Exchange OHLCV candles for one product at 1m, 5m

finance_coinbase_orderbook_candles

Read-only

Coinbase Exchange OHLCV candles for one product (e.g. BTC-USD) at 1m, 5m, 15m, 1h, 6h or 1d granularity, plus the current best bid and ask. Latest candles only (Coinbase returns up to 300 per call). Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_coinbase_spot_exchange when you need Coinbase Exchange order book for one product: best bid; finance_coinbase_exchange_products when you need Coinbase Exchange trading products with status and minimum. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "product": "<product>"
    },
    "name": "finance_coinbase_orderbook_candles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many candles, 1 to 100 (default 10)
`product`	Yes	Coinbase product id, e.g. BTC-USD, ETH-EUR
`granularity`	No	Seconds per candle: 60, 300, 900, 3600, 21600 or 86400 (default 86400)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`bestAsk`	No
`bestBid`	No
`candles`	No
`product`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`granularitySeconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds several facts an agent could not infer: results are latest candles only, Coinbase caps at 300 per call, the response includes best bid and ask, each successful call costs $0.002 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, and failed calls are not billed. The cost and billing-failure semantics are especially valuable for a paid, open-world read tool.

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 core capability and its scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by limits, then alternatives, then pricing — a sensible ordering for an agent parsing left to right. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the only redundancy is repeating granularity values already present in the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool complexity is low (one required param, three total) and an output schema exists, so return-value details need not be spelled out. Combined with the fill-or-fail limit note, the pricing model and the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to anticipate being charged.

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 coverage is 100%, so product, limit and granularity are already documented with types, defaults and allowed values; the description cannot add much and mostly restates the granularity list. It does contribute the constraint that only 'latest' candles are returned and that the upstream cap is 300, which bounds how 'limit' is interpreted. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Coinbase Exchange OHLCV candles for one product') and enumerates the exact granularities supported, plus a secondary payload (current best bid/ask). It explicitly separates itself from the two nearest siblings, crypto_coinbase_spot_exchange and finance_coinbase_exchange_products, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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 routes away from siblings with explicit conditions ('when you need Coinbase Exchange order book for one product: best bid' vs 'trading products with status and minimum'), which is stronger than most definitions. What it never states directly is the positive trigger for this tool itself, e.g. 'use when you need historical OHLCV series for charting'; that has to be inferred from the purpose sentence.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?