tickersBitfinex crypto exchange — multi-symbol live tickers for crypto pairs. Pass comma-separated symbols like "tBTCUSD,tETHUSD" or "ALL". Returns bid/ask, last, daily change, volume per pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | Yes |
| 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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the exchange source (Bitfinex), the live nature, and the special 'ALL' option—context beyond the annotations. It also lists returned fields (bid/ask, last, daily change, volume), which is useful even with an output schema present.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first captures purpose and scope, the second gives input syntax and output summary. No redundant detail, perfectly front-loaded.
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 one-parameter, read-only, annotated tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what it does, how to use it, and what it returns. It is self-sufficient for correct invocation.
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 input schema has zero description coverage for the 'symbols' parameter. The description fully compensates by explaining the comma-separated format and the special 'ALL' value, with concrete examples (tBTCUSD,tETHUSD).
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?
Clearly states it provides multi-symbol live tickers for Bitfinex crypto pairs, with specific output fields. The plural 'tickers' and 'multi-symbol' wording distinguishes it from the sibling 'ticker' tool.
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?
Describes exactly how to pass symbols ('comma-separated' or 'ALL') and what it returns. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for single-symbol or historical data, but the context strongly implies this is for multiple live tickers.
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.