tickerOKX crypto exchange — single instrument ticker (e.g. "BTC-USDT", "BTC-USD-SWAP"). Returns bid/ask, last, 24h vol/change. Use for current pricing of an OKX-listed instrument.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instId | Yes |
| 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the data fields returned and instrument examples, but no further behavioral caveats (rate limits, auth, etc.). This is limited additional value.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and scope. Every sentence provides distinct information (what it is, what it returns, when to use it). No fluff or repetition.
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 simple (one parameter, read-only, has an output schema). The description covers purpose, usage, and parameter format adequately for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly. Sibling differentiation is implicit and sufficient.
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 schema only defines instId as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates with concrete examples ('BTC-USDT', 'BTC-USD-SWAP') and the OKX context, adding meaningful semantics for parameter values beyond the schema.
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 this is a single instrument ticker for OKX, with a specific verb 'Returns' and lists the data fields (bid/ask, last, 24h vol/change). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tickers' by explicitly saying 'single instrument' and gives concrete examples.
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?
It explicitly advises 'Use for current pricing of an OKX-listed instrument,' providing clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'single instrument' phrasing contrasts with the plural 'tickers' sibling, implying scope.
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.