Skip to main content
Glama

Quote.Trade MCP Adapter

Quote.Trade status

quote_trade_status
Read-only

Call GET /api/status and return system status, server time, contracts URL, and feature flags.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "quote_trade_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawYesRaw JSON response body.
bodyYesParsed JSON response body when valid JSON; otherwise the raw text.
methodYesHTTP method used against Quote.Trade.
statusYesHTTP status code.
endpointYesQuote.Trade API endpoint path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and returned fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral nuances such as authentication requirements or rate limits. This is adequate given the annotations.

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, straightforward sentence that front-loads the endpoint and the key outputs. There is no waste; every word earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With zero parameters and a read-only annotation set, the description provides all necessary context. It explicitly lists the return values, and since an output schema exists, there is no need for further elaboration on the response format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, leaving nothing for the description to explain about parameters. Per the calibration baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a GET call to /api/status and specifies the exact return values: system status, server time, contracts URL, and feature flags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like exchange_info or instruments, which serve different endpoints and purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when an agent needs system status or server time, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving some inference required.

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.

Resources