Top crypto prices from our aggregated ticker feed (global VWAP across 60+ exchanges). Params: topN (default 10, max 30), symbols (optional array like ["BTC","ETH"]).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topN | No | ||
| symbols | 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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful detail about aggregation methodology, exchange coverage, and parameter bounds, but it does not disclose output format, ordering guarantees, or behavior when parameters are invalid or combined.
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?
Very concise and well-structured. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a compact inline parameter summary. 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 two-parameter tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but there is no output schema and the return structure is not described. An agent would have to infer whether the response is an array of symbols with price fields, which is a meaningful gap given the lack of output schema and annotations.
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. It does: topN is given a default and max, and symbols is documented with an optional array example. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could clarify whether symbols filters or overrides topN.
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 the action: returns top crypto prices from an aggregated ticker feed, with global VWAP across 60+ exchanges. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_klines or get_orderbook by referencing 'ticker feed' and 'aggregated VWAP'.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of selection criteria, exclusions, or context such as 'use for global market prices' or 'for per-exchange data use get_orderbook'.
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.