Skip to main content
Glama

Gate MCP

by io.github.gateio-dev

cex_fx_get_fx_trades

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get recent public trades for a futures contract

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd timestamp in seconds, defaults to current time if not specified
fromNoStart timestamp in seconds. If not specified, returns records limited by to and limit
limitNoMaximum number of records to return
offsetNoList offset, starting from 0
settleNoSettlement currency
last_idNoSpecify list starting point using the last record ID from previous request
contractYesFutures contract name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'recent public' qualifier, indicating data scope, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination defaults or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple data retrieval tool and every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description lacks some contextual details like explicit mention of FX futures, but the name and schema compensate. No output schema means return values need not be described.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Get recent public trades') and a specific resource ('futures contract'). It distinguishes itself from sibling trade tools by implying the futures market, though it does not explicitly name FX. The tool name reinforces this context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cex_spot_get_spot_trades or cex_options_list_options_trades. There are no usage context hints, exclusions, or alternative mentions.

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

All Gate MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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'.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources