MCP-Coinglass

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct data type: funding rate, whale alerts/positions, liquidations (by coin and pair), long/short ratio, and open interest. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the uniform pattern COINGLASS_<DOMAIN> with uppercase and underscores, making them predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the core Coinglass API metrics without unnecessary bloat, well-scoped for a data retrieval server.
Completeness4/5
Covers major Coinglass indicators (funding, whales, liquidations, long/short, OI). Minor gap: funding rate history is not explicitly provided, but core functionality is present.
Average 3.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 24, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets liquidation history but omits critical details such as default interval (1d), maximum limit (4500), pagination behavior, rate limits, or that prettyFormat controls output format. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, it may be too minimal given the tool's complexity, bordering on under-specification rather than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not clarify output format (raw vs pretty), time range behavior, or how to handle pagination. Agents would have to infer too much from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 43%, meaning many parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-level details, forcing agents to rely solely on parameter names and the sparse schema descriptions. Key parameters like start_time and end_time have no explanation.
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 the tool retrieves liquidation history for a specific futures pair, using a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from its sibling tool COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_COIN, which might have a different scope (e.g., per coin vs per pair).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_COIN or other CoinGlass tools. The description simply states the function without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Get aggregated liquidation history', implying a read operation. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or the structure of the response. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, for a tool with 7 parameters, it lacks important structure and critical details. It could be slightly longer to front-load key information about required parameters or aggregation behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (7), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the roles of interval, limit, start_time, end_time, or how aggregation works across exchanges. It also does not clarify the difference from the sibling tool COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_PAIR.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 43% (only 3 of 7 parameters have descriptions: exchange_list, symbol, prettyFormat). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond repeating 'aggregated liquidation history for a coin across exchanges'. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions of interval, limit, start_time, end_time, which are essential for correct usage.
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 'Get aggregated liquidation history for a coin across exchanges', which specifies the verb (Get), resource (aggregated liquidation history), and scope (for a coin across exchanges). This differentiates it from siblings like COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_PAIR (likely pair-specific) and other non-liquidation tools.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for coin-level aggregated data, but does not mention exclusions or comparisons with siblings like COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_PAIR. Usage is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or any side effects.
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 11-word sentence that is perfectly front-loaded and contains no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description omits details about output format (besides prettyFormat), behavior when exchange is omitted, and how history data is structured. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context only for 'includeHistory' (via 'optional OI history'), leaving 'period' entirely unexplained. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('open interest exchange list and optional OI history'), and the scope ('for a symbol'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like funding rate or liquidations, which cover different metrics.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., COINGLASS_FUNDING_RATE) or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not the context of its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation, omitting details about authentication, rate limits, error handling, or output format. The agent is left with significant unknowns.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with key information. No extraneous words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and has 3 parameters, yet the description does not clarify the return format (especially with the prettyFormat parameter) or handling of errors. The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('current funding rate'), and the scope ('across exchanges for a symbol'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on whale alerts, positions, liquidations, open interest, and long-short ratio.
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 (to fetch funding rate data) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. Sibling tools are distinct, so no confusion, but context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the value threshold but omits details like data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or whether the data is real-time or historical. The description does not disclose any significant behavioral aspects beyond the basic query.
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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks details about the returned data structure (e.g., fields, format) and any usage constraints. For a low-complexity tool, it is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'prettyFormat'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline score of 3 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 what the tool does: 'Get Hyperliquid whale positions (value over $1M)'. It specifies the exact resource ('Hyperliquid whale positions') and a specific threshold ('value over $1M'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like COINGLASS_HYPERLIQUID_WHALE_ALERT or COINGLASS_FUNDING_RATE.
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 needing large positions on Hyperliquid, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., COINGLASS_HYPERLIQUID_WHALE_ALERT for alerts). No exclusion criteria or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns a 'history snapshot' and does not mention data freshness, rate limits, aggregation behavior, or the effect of the prettyFormat parameter on output.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what 'history snapshot' means and how 'prettyFormat' affects output. It is adequate but leaves gaps about return format and period default behavior.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('global account long/short ratio history snapshot'), and the target ('for a symbol'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that handle funding rates, liquidations, open interest, etc.
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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool (when needing long/short ratio data), but does not specify when not to use it or offer explicit alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'real-time' and a threshold but fails to specify polling behavior, data freshness, pagination, or side effects. The lack of disclosure is a significant gap.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description covers the essential purpose. However, it could be improved by briefly noting the typical content of alerts (e.g., direction, size, entry price) to fully prepare the agent.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (prettyFormat), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline expectation of 3.
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 'real-time Hyperliquid whale alerts' with a specific threshold ($1M positions), using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('whale alerts'). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like COINGLASS_HYPERLIQUID_WHALE_POSITION and COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_COIN.
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?
While the description implies usage for monitoring large positions in real time, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., COINGLASS_HYPERLIQUID_WHALE_POSITION for individual positions). There is no guidance on context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-coinglass MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GPSxtreme/mcp-coinglass/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GPSxtreme/mcp-coinglass)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-coinglass MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GPSxtreme/mcp-coinglass/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GPSxtreme/mcp-coinglass)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GPSxtreme/mcp-coinglass'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server