MCP-Coinglass

COINGLASS_FUNDING_RATE

Get current funding rates for a given cryptocurrency symbol from multiple exchanges.

Instructions

Get current funding rate across exchanges for a symbol

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "COINGLASS_FUNDING_RATE"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`symbol`	Yes	Base asset symbol, e.g., BTC or BTCUSDT
`exchange`	No	Optional exchange filter, e.g., Binance
`prettyFormat`	No	When true (default), returns a human-readable summary; when false, returns raw API-shaped data.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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.

Deploy Server