tickerBitfinex crypto exchange — single-pair live ticker (e.g. "tBTCUSD"). Returns bid/ask, last trade price, 24h volume + change percentage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Single ticker data with OHLC and volume values |
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 the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds transparency by enumerating the exact data returned (bid/ask, last trade price, 24h volume, change percentage), which is useful beyond the annotations. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling are mentioned, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and exchange, and includes an example and return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it identifies the data source (Bitfinex), scope (single-pair live), provides a concrete example, and lists return fields. Annotations cover safety, so no critical information is missing.
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%, so the description must compensate. It provides the example 'tBTCUSD' and implies the Bitfinex symbol format, but does not explain the full symbol convention or behavior for invalid symbols. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a single parameter.
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 clearly states it is a Bitfinex single-pair live ticker and specifies the return fields (bid/ask, last price, 24h volume, change percentage). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tickers, candles, and ticker_history through the 'single-pair' and 'live' scope.
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 clear context that this is for a single live pair, implying it is appropriate for retrieving current data for one symbol. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'single-pair' and 'live' framing effectively communicates when to use it versus multi-pair or historical tools.
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.