Skip to main content
Glama

CoinCryptoRank MCP

agent_decisions

Recent decisions/log of one of your agents (status, trigger, summary, reply).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentYesAgent id or name substring
limitNoMax rows (default 10, max 50)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. It implies a read operation that returns an agent's decision log, but it does not state side effects, whether the operation is safe, ordering, time range, or whether the agent identifier must be exact. This leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core resource ('recent decisions/log') and lists key fields in parentheses, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read tool, the description gives a reasonable sense of return content and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out return shape (e.g., whether it is a list), ordering, and time window, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema: agent as 'Agent id or name substring' and limit with default/max values. The description does not add any extra parameter-level insight, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description identifies the resource as 'recent decisions/log' for a specified agent and lists the returned fields (status, trigger, summary, reply), making it clear this retrieves a decision log. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', but it is distinguishable from siblings such as agent_status and agent_trigger by focusing on the full decision record.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related tools like agent_status or agent_trigger. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusion conditions, or any decision criteria for selection.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools serve distinct purposes (hedging, funding, agents, market data), but several overlap heavily: get_basis_regime, get_basis_signal, get_basis_history, analyze_pair_liquidity, and get_perp_arbitrage all analyze exchange spreads/basis with blurred boundaries. Similarly, close_hedged_position vs close_position and hedge_status vs list_hedge_positions vs get_positions could cause misselection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set predominantly follows a verb_noun pattern (get_*, open_*, close_*, set_*, list_*, place_*) which is predictable and readable. Minor deviations exist: agent_chat, agent_trigger, and square_post break the convention, and the hedge-specific tools mix status/list/adjust naming inconsistently.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the heavy side and pushes past the ideal scope for a single server. Many tools are data-retrieval variants (basis history/regime/signal/liquidity) that could be consolidated, and the breadth from news to square posts to agent management makes the surface feel sprawling rather than focused.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows (hedging, basis analysis, funding arbitrage, agent interaction, position management) are well covered, but there are noticeable gaps: there is no cancel_order tool despite get_open_orders and place_order existing, no order history or trade history, and no exchange-side position listing for real user positions. The server covers its niche but leaves some common trading dead ends.