derivatives_statusPerpetual contract status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keys | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes |
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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these, such as whether the status is current, delayed, or what actions are safe. It neither contradicts the annotations nor enhances them.
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 extremely short (three words) but under-specifies the tool's capabilities. It is concise in the sense of being short, but not well-structured or informative; it reads as a fragment rather than a meaningful sentence, lacking the detail needed for reliable invocation.
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 an output schema and supportive annotations, the description is too minimal to be complete. It fails to clarify what 'status' covers, how to format queries, or how it relates to sibling tools. The agent would be left uncertain about the tool's behavior and results.
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?
The schema has no description for 'keys', and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description also fails to explain the parameter. While the schema example 'pBTCUSD,pETHUSD' hints at a comma-separated list of contract symbols, the description itself provides no meaning, placing full burden on the schema's sparse example.
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 'Perpetual contract status' is a noun phrase that restates the tool's title without specifying an action. It does not indicate whether the tool retrieves, checks, or lists status information, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like derivatives_status_history or liquidations.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when 'perpetual contract status' is the appropriate choice.
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.
Many tools overlap or are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and there are multiple prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) with fine-grained but confusing distinctions. The mix of Bitfinex market data tools with an unrelated Pipeworx research suite makes tool selection genuinely ambiguous.
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the semantic pattern is inconsistent: bare nouns (ticker, candles, trades, stats), verb_noun phrases (validate_claim, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), and large prefixed families (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*) coexist. This mixed convention gives no reliable cue to a tool's function.
42 tools is excessive for a server named 'Bitfinex'. Only about a dozen tools actually relate to the crypto exchange (ticker, candles, trades, book, liquidations, etc.); the rest are a grab bag of Pipeworx research, prediction markets, memory, and subscription features. The count bloats the surface and obscures the server's purpose.
The set has no coherent scope. For a Bitfinex server, there are no account/trading tools, only market data. For the buried Pipeworx functionality, the surface is extensive but unrelated to Bitfinex. The overall result is an incomplete hodgepodge with no clear lifecycle or workflow for a single domain.