Skip to main content
Glama

Bitstamp

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ticker

ticker
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch current Bitstamp ticker for a currency pair (e.g. btcusd): last price, bid, ask, 24h high/low/volume/vwap, and open.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
currency_pairYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
askNoCurrent ask price
bidNoCurrent bid price
lowNoLowest price in 24h
highNoHighest price in 24h
lastNoLast traded price
openNoOpening price
vwapNoVolume weighted average price
volumeNoTrading volume in 24h
timestampNoUnix timestamp

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "currency_pair": "btcusd"
+  },
+  {
+    "currency_pair": "ethusd"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "ask": {
+      "description": "Current ask price",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "bid": {
+      "description": "Current bid price",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "high": {
+      "description": "Highest price in 24h",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "last": {
+      "description": "Last traded price",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "low": {
+      "description": "Lowest price in 24h",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "open": {
+      "description": "Opening price",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timestamp": {
+      "description": "Unix timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "volume": {
+      "description": "Trading volume in 24h",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "vwap": {
+      "description": "Volume weighted average price",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (last price, bid, ask, 24h high/low/volume/vwap, open), which clarifies exactly what 'ticker' means here. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch current Bitstamp ticker'), then lists the key fields concisely. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It states the exchange (Bitstamp), the timeframe (current), and the exact fields returned. The output schema covers return structure, and 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.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only defines currency_pair as a string with no description, giving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by explaining it is a currency pair and providing the example 'btcusd', which clarifies the expected format (base+quote lowercase). While it doesn't list all possible pairs, the example is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches the current Bitstamp ticker for a currency pair, listing the exact data points returned. It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('current Bitstamp ticker'), and the 'current' qualifier distinguishes it from siblings like ticker_hour.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: this is for fetching the live ticker data, not historical or other market data. It gives an example use case ('btcusd'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool for current price information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Bitstamp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources