List options settlement history for an underlying
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End timestamp in seconds | |
| from | No | Start timestamp in seconds | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of records to return | |
| offset | No | List offset, starting from 0 | |
| underlying | Yes | Underlying asset name, 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 safety and mutability. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, default ordering, or that results may change over time), so it provides minimal value beyond the annotations.
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 no redundant detail. It efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words, making it very concise and well-structured.
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?
With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose but omits contextual details like return record structure or pagination behavior. While the schema covers filtering parameters, the tool is simple enough that this might suffice, but it is not fully complete for an agent unfamiliar with the API.
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% for all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description only repeats 'underlying' and does not add any meaning beyond the property descriptions, thus meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
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 options settlement history for an underlying' clearly states the verb (List), resource (options settlement history), and scope (for an underlying). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cex_options_get_options_settlement, which likely retrieves a single settlement, while this lists historical records.
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 implies its usage context (listing settlement history for a given underlying) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no reference to the singular get_options_settlement tool for individual records, so guidance is only implicit.
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.