Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
0xarchive-mcp

0xarchive-mcp

by 0xArchiveIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

get_hip4_outcome

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a HIP-4 outcome by outcome_id, returning the full aggregate including latest open interest, paired set supply, parity, and currency data.

Instructions

Get a single HIP-4 outcome by outcome_id. Returns the full Hip4OutcomeAggregate including aggregated_oi (latest both-sides OI snapshot, paired set supply, parity, and currency).

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": {
      "outcome_id": "<outcome_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_hip4_outcome"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outcome_idYesHIP-4 outcome_id (integer). Each outcome has two sides: '<10*id>' (Yes) and '<10*id+1>' (No).

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds return structure details beyond annotations, but does not disclose potential edge cases or performance traits.

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 sentences, no fluff. Key information is front-loaded: action, resource, return type.

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?

Tool is simple (single parameter, read-only). Output schema exists. Description covers core functionality and return fields adequately for agent invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and describes outcome_id suffix logic. Description merely restates 'by outcome_id' without adding new semantic value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it gets a single HIP-4 outcome by outcome_id and specifies the return fields (full Hip4OutcomeAggregate with aggregated_oi details). Distinguishes from sibling 'get_hip4_outcomes' by focusing on single item retrieval.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. While sibling list implies use for single outcome vs list, description does not guide selection or state prerequisites.

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