List delivery trades.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End timestamp in seconds | |
| from | No | Start timestamp in seconds | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of records to return | |
| settle | No | Settlement currency for delivery (e.g. usdt, btc) | |
| last_id | No | Specify list starting point using the last record ID from previous request | |
| contract | Yes | Delivery contract identifier (e.g. BTC_USDT) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination via last_id or rate-limit concerns. It does not contradict the annotations, and the read-only nature is consistent with 'List'.
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 sentence, perfectly front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words or filler. It is as concise as a description can be while still conveying the core purpose.
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?
Despite having annotations and a well-documented schema, the description is too minimal to provide complete context for a tool with 6 parameters and optional filters. It does not explain what a 'delivery trade' is, how the required 'contract' parameter relates to the listing, or what kind of data is returned. The lack of an output schema further amplifies this gap.
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 all six parameters (to, from, limit, settle, last_id, contract) are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not go beyond what the schema provides, yielding a baseline score of 3.
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 'List delivery trades' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (delivery trades), with 'delivery' distinguishing it from other trade-listing tools like spot, Fx, and options trades in the sibling list. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention why an agent would choose this over other trade listing tools, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The only context is the word 'delivery', which implies but does not explicitly explain the appropriate use case.
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.
Every tool is clearly scoped by its domain prefix (spot, fx, options, etc.) and resource type, with no two tools serving the same purpose. Even similar data types like candlesticks and order books are unambiguously separated by market.
The naming follows a strong pattern: cex_<domain>_<verb>_<resource>. However, the use of 'get' vs 'list' is occasionally inconsistent (e.g., cex_fx_get_fx_tickers vs cex_spot_list_currencies), and some names are verbose with version suffixes like 'v4'.
With 63 tools, this is an extreme count that will overwhelm an agent. While the breadth covers many product lines, the vast number of endpoints makes selection difficult and violates the typical scope for an MCP server.
The tool surface comprehensively covers public market data across spot, futures, options, delivery, earn, margin, lending, launch, and social products. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical trade depth, no single-ticker convenience methods), but the core data needs are fully addressed.