Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid)

Gate pair specification

market_gate_pair_spec

Read-onlyIdempotent

How Gate defines a currency pair: base and quote, the flat fee percent, order-size floors and caps, precision and whether it is tradable. Costs $0.001 USDC per call. Byte-identical to GET /market/gate-pair-spec?pair=BTC_USDT.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pair`	Yes	Gate currency_pair, BASE_QUOTE [required]

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`ts`	No
`fee`	No
`base`	No
`note`	No
`type`	No
`found`	No
`quote`	No
`stale`	No
`caveat`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No
`st_tag`	No
`up_rate`	No
`slippage`	No
`base_name`	No
`down_rate`	No
`quote_name`	No
`trade_quotes`	No
`trade_status`	No
`max_base_amount`	No
`min_base_amount`	No
`price_precision`	No
`amount_precision`	No
`max_quote_amount`	No
`min_quote_amount`	No
`market_order_max_money`	No
`market_order_max_stock`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "amount_precision": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "base": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "base_name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "caveat": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "down_rate": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "fee": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "found": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "market_order_max_money": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "market_order_max_stock": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "max_base_amount": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "max_quote_amount": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "min_base_amount": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "min_quote_amount": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "price_precision": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "quote": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "quote_name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "slippage": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "st_tag": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "trade_quotes": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "trade_status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "up_rate": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds two valuable behavioral facts: the cost per call ($0.001 USDC) and that the output is byte-identical to a specific REST endpoint. This goes beyond the annotations and provides actionable context about side effects and equivalence.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose ('How Gate defines a currency pair') followed by a list of included fields. The cost and equivalence note are added as a separate sentence, keeping the main intent clear. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The tool is simple (one parameter), and the description covers purpose, cost, and equivalence. Annotations handle the read-only/idempotent behavior. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance, which is already scored separately, but for completeness it's adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'pair' has a clear description ('Gate currency_pair, BASE_QUOTE [required]'). The description does not add extra meaning about how to format the pair or any nuances beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema is complete, the description does not need to compensate, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it explains how Gate defines a currency pair, listing specific fields like base/quote, fee percent, floors/caps, precision, and tradability. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from generic market data tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other exchange pair-spec tools (e.g., market_kraken_pair_spec), so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool is byte-identical to a GET endpoint but does not state when a caller should choose this over other market_* tools. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' language, leaving usage context implicit.

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

All Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid) 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?