Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
0xarchive-mcp

0xarchive-mcp

by 0xArchiveIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

get_data_latency

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve current WebSocket and REST API latency metrics, plus data freshness lag per type for supported venues.

Instructions

Get current latency metrics for supported venue APIs. Returns WebSocket latency (current, 1h avg, 24h avg), REST API latency, and data freshness lag per data type (orderbook, fills, funding, OI).

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": "get_data_latency"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesResult data object

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact metrics returned (e.g., current, 1h avg, 24h avg for WebSocket latency, REST API latency, and per-type data freshness). No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and details. Every word provides value; no redundancy.

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 no parameters, annotations present, and an output schema, the description gives sufficient detail about what the tool returns. The rule states that if output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed, so completeness is high.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves current latency metrics for venue APIs, listing specific metrics (WebSocket latency, REST API latency, data freshness lag per data type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other data (candles, orderbooks, etc.).

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_freshness' or 'get_data_quality_status'. The description does not provide context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools