ohlcFetch OHLC candlestick data from Bitstamp for a currency pair; step sets candle duration in seconds, limit caps candle count, with optional Unix start/end range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| step | Yes | ||
| limit | Yes | ||
| start | No | ||
| currency_pair | Yes | ||
| exclude_current_candle | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ohlc | No | OHLC candles | |
| pair | No | Currency pair | |
| timestamp | No | Unix timestamp |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "currency_pair": "btcusd",
+ "limit": 100,
+ "step": 3600
+ },
+ {
+ "currency_pair": "ethusd",
+ "end": 1640100000,
+ "limit": 50,
+ "start": 1640000000,
+ "step": 300
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "ohlc": {
+ "description": "OHLC candles",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Candle [timestamp, open, high, low, close, volume]",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "pair": {
+ "description": "Currency pair",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "timestamp": {
+ "description": "Unix timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds parameter behavior (step, limit, start/end) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like handling of exclude_current_candle or data availability. It provides some value beyond annotations.
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, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the action and connects key parameters to their meaning. There is zero fluff and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
The tool is a straightforward data-fetch operation with an output schema and strong annotations, reducing the burden on the description. The description covers the core purpose and main parameters, with the only notable omission being exclude_current_candle. Overall, an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly with the provided information.
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% for 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains step, limit, start, and end in plain terms, and mentions currency_pair implicitly. However, exclude_current_candle is left unexplained, leaving a gap in fully understanding the parameter set.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('OHLC candlestick data from Bitstamp') and scope ('for a currency pair'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ticker or order_book by focusing on historical candlestick data.
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 implies usage for retrieving OHLC data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives nor provide exclusions. Sibling tools like ticker or order_book are not referenced, so guidance is implied rather than direct.
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.
Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions, while the polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and related tools blur edge-detection boundaries. The server's Bitstamp identity also clashes with the bulk of tools being unrelated data-research, making selection harder.
Tool names are all lowercase snake_case, which is consistent formatting, but no coherent verb_noun pattern emerges. Some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools) while others are noun-first or resource-based (ticker_hour, order_book, polymarket_edges), and the naming style differs across the two major domains.
At 38 tools, the set is well over the 15-tool threshold for a focused server, and the majority of tools are unrelated to the server's Bitstamp name. The count feels bloated and scattershot—it would be better split into separate data-research and exchange servers.
The data-research and question-answering surface is broadly covered, with meta-tools and validation. However, the Bitstamp exchange half is incomplete: it only provides public market data (ticker, order book, trades, OHLC) with no trading, account, or private-data operations, an obvious gap given the server's name.