statsStatistics by key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| key | Yes | ||
| side | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| section | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this—it does not explain what 'key' refers to, what data is returned, or any constraints like pagination or format. The description is neutral but uninformative.
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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical information needed to invoke a tool with 8 parameters and provides no structure or context. The brevity does not serve the agent's needs.
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 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and a vague two-word description, the tool is far too underspecified. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain the tool's core concept, valid keys, or parameter interactions. This is completely inadequate for correct tool selection and use.
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 0% (no property descriptions), so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. The description only mentions 'key', and even that is unclear. The other 7 parameters (end, side, sort, limit, start, symbol, section) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.
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?
Description 'Statistics by key' vaguely indicates the operation is about retrieving statistics, but there is no specific verb or resource context. It does not differentiate the tool from sibling data tools like candles, trades, or tickers, leaving the exact purpose unclear.
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?
No usage guidance is given. The description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives, what scenarios it suits, or any prerequisites. There is no mention of comparison to sibling tools, making it impossible for an agent to decide when stats is the correct 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.