statusOKX exchange system status — current operational state and any scheduled or ongoing maintenance windows affecting trading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the specific content returned (operational state, maintenance windows) without contradicting annotations. This extra context goes beyond the annotations, earning a 4.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's subject ('OKX exchange system status') and its key details. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, is read-only, and has an output schema (per context signals), the description adequately covers the essential purpose and content. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The description is complete for this simple tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the guidelines, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4. The schema coverage is trivially 100%.
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 identifies the tool as reporting OKX exchange system status, including operational state and maintenance windows. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ticker or candles, which focus on market data. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so it is not a 5.
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 this tool should be used when checking exchange operational status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. There is no direct guidance on usage timing, so it earns a 3.
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.
The tool set mixes OKX exchange tools with a large set of Pipeworx data query tools and prediction market tools. Many tools overlap in purpose, e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all answer questions but with different modes. OKX tools like ticker and tickers are clear but the overall set is confusing.
Naming is inconsistent: OKX tools use single nouns or underscores (ticker, order_book), Pipeworx tools use verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), and prediction market tools use prefixed names (polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research). No consistent pattern.
43 tools is excessive for a coherent server. The scope is unclear—combining exchange, data lookup, and prediction market tools into one server results in a cluttered surface.
The server tries to cover too many domains. OKX coverage is decent, but the inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) makes the set feel incomplete for any single purpose. Gaps exist in each sub-domain due to the broad scope.