Skip to main content
Glama

Bitstamp

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ticker Hour

ticker_hour
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch Bitstamp last-hour ticker stats for a currency pair (e.g. btcusd): last, bid, ask, high, low, volume, and vwap over the past 60 minutes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
currency_pairYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
askNoCurrent ask price
bidNoCurrent bid price
lowNoLowest price in last hour
highNoHighest price in last hour
lastNoLast traded price
openNoOpening price
vwapNoVolume weighted average price
volumeNoTrading volume in last hour
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"
+  }
+]
    • 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 last hour",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "last": {
+      "description": "Last traded price",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "low": {
+      "description": "Lowest price in last hour",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "open": {
+      "description": "Opening price",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timestamp": {
+      "description": "Unix timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "volume": {
+      "description": "Trading volume in last hour",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "vwap": {
+      "description": "Volume weighted average price",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the exchange (Bitstamp), the time window, and the specific fields returned (last, bid, ask, high, low, volume, vwap). It does not disclose potential error conditions, rate limits, or formatting constraints, but adds useful scope 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes all essential details (exchange, scope, fields, time window). 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.

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what fields are returned. The main gap is not explicitly clarifying how it differs from the sibling 'ticker' tool, but this is not essential for basic usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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

The schema provides 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'currency_pair'. The description compensates with an example ('btcusd') and implies the format, but does not provide explicit rules on case, valid pairs, or formatting patterns. This is partial compensation but leaves ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Bitstamp last-hour ticker stats'), clearly specifying the currency pair and time window ('past 60 minutes'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'ticker', which likely refers to the current ticker.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving 60-minute historical ticker stats, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'ticker' or 'ohlc'. There is no direct 'when to use this instead' guidance, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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