Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
0xarchive-mcp

0xarchive-mcp

by 0xArchiveIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

get_exchange_coverage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve data coverage metrics for a crypto exchange, including earliest and latest timestamps, total records, symbol count, resolution, and completeness per data type.

Instructions

Get data coverage for a specific venue scope. Returns earliest/latest timestamps, total records, symbol count, resolution, and completeness per data type.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "exchange": "<exchange>"
    },
    "name": "get_exchange_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
exchangeYesVenue scope

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesResult data object

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide safety profile (read-only, idempotent). Description adds return fields but no additional behavior like authorization or rate limits. Adequate but not extra value.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. Could add examples or expected usage context.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with enum and description. Description adds minor context (venue scope) but doesn't elaborate on enum values. Baseline is 3.

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 clearly states it gets data coverage for a specific venue scope and lists return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like get_data_coverage (likely all venues) and get_symbol_coverage, but could explicitly differentiate.

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?

Implied usage for a single venue, but no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives like get_data_coverage or get_symbol_coverage. Lacks when-not-to-use.

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