platform_statusPlatform status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of items returned. | |
| items | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / count / typePrevious value: -"integer"New value: +"number"Output schema / properties / items / items / typePrevious value: -"array"New value: +"number"Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "items",
- "count"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which convey that this is a safe read operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context (e.g., what status is checked, whether it reflects the current state, or any side effects). It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations, so it falls short of the baseline for meaningful transparency.
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 two-word fragment that is under-specified rather than concise. It does not provide enough information to be useful, and its brevity is a form of incompleteness, not efficient writing. A well-structured description would at least include a verb and clarify the scope of 'status'.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, output schema exists), the description should clarify what 'platform status' returns or covers. It does not. The annotations and output schema are available but the description fails to connect them or provide any real-world context. This is a clear gap for an otherwise minimal tool.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline score is 4. There is no parameter information to document, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema coverage. The empty schema and description align perfectly.
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 is 'Platform status.', which is a direct restatement of the tool name and title. It lacks a specific verb or resource description, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'derivatives_status' or 'stats'. This is a tautology rather than a meaningful purpose statement.
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply asserts a state without explaining the context in which 'platform status' is useful. The agent is left to infer any usage conditions from the tool name alone.
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.