order_bookBitstamp crypto exchange (European; oldest active crypto exchange — est. 2011) order book for a crypto pair like "btcusd": bids + asks. Use for live depth-of-book on Bitstamp-listed pairs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | ||
| currency_pair | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asks | No | List of ask orders | |
| bids | No | List of bid orders | |
| timestamp | No | Unix timestamp |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "currency_pair": "btcusd"
+ },
+ {
+ "currency_pair": "ethusd",
+ "group": 2
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "asks": {
+ "description": "List of ask orders",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Ask order [price, amount]",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "bids": {
+ "description": "List of bid orders",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Bid order [price, amount]",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the data is 'live' and specific to Bitstamp, but doesn't disclose behavior like rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid pairs. It provides some context beyond annotations but not rich detail.
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 two sentences, but the first sentence includes irrelevant context ('European; oldest active crypto exchange — est. 2011') that does not help an agent use the tool. The second sentence is useful and succinct, but the extra historical note makes it less concise than it could be.
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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers the core purpose and use case. However, it fails to explain the optional 'group' parameter and doesn't mention any limitations or prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description explains the format of currency_pair with the example 'btcusd', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not mention the 'group' parameter at all, leaving its purpose (likely aggregation) undocumented. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but is incomplete.
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 that the tool returns the order book (bids + asks) for a specified crypto pair on Bitstamp. It explicitly mentions the resource, the output, and the pair format, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ticker (price) and ohlc (candles).
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 phrase 'Use for live depth-of-book on Bitstamp-listed pairs' gives an explicit use case. It doesn't mention alternatives by name, but the context implies it should be used when real-time bid/ask depth is needed, as opposed to price levels or historical data.
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.