OHLCV candles from the official exchange API (binance or xt). Params: exchange ("binance"|"xt"), symbol, interval ("1m","5m","1h"), limit (max 500).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| exchange | Yes | ||
| interval | No |
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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful constraints ('limit max 500', official API, allowed intervals), but does not disclose ordering, default values, return shape, or whether the operation is explicitly read-only.
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?
A single compact sentence front-loads the resource and then lists every parameter with its relevant constraint. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple read-only candle retrieval tool, the description covers source, exchanges, symbols, intervals, and limit without an output schema. It could mention the returned candle shape/ordering, but the description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the exchange enum, allowed intervals, and the 500-candle limit. Symbol is named but not elaborated, which is a minor gap since its meaning is self-evident.
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 names the resource precisely ('OHLCV candles') and the data source ('official exchange API (binance or xt)'), which separates it from sibling quote/orderbook tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name and noun phrase leave no ambiguity about what is returned.
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 it is for historical/candle data by naming OHLCV candles, and the allowed exchanges and intervals define the scope. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling market-data tools like get_tickers or get_orderbook, nor any exclusions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.