Skip to main content
Glama
IAcomunIA

CoinGecko MCP Server

by IAcomunIA

get_timeframe_pools_networks_onchain_ohlcv

Read-only

Retrieve OHLCV chart data for cryptocurrency pools by providing network, pool address, and timeframe parameters to analyze price and volume trends.

Instructions

When using this tool, always use the jq_filter parameter to reduce the response size and improve performance.

Only omit if you're sure you don't need the data.

This endpoint allows you to get the OHLCV chart (Open, High, Low, Close, Volume) of a pool based on the provided pool address on a network

Response Schema

{
  $ref: '#/$defs/ohlcv_get_timeframe_response',
  $defs: {
    ohlcv_get_timeframe_response: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        data: {
          type: 'object',
          properties: {
            id: {
              type: 'string'
            },
            attributes: {
              type: 'object',
              properties: {
                ohlcv_list: {
                  type: 'array',
                  items: {
                    type: 'array',
                    items: {
                      type: 'number'
                    }
                  }
                }
              }
            },
            type: {
              type: 'string'
            }
          }
        },
        meta: {
          type: 'object',
          properties: {
            base: {
              type: 'object',
              properties: {
                address: {
                  type: 'string'
                },
                coingecko_coin_id: {
                  type: 'string'
                },
                name: {
                  type: 'string'
                },
                symbol: {
                  type: 'string'
                }
              }
            },
            quote: {
              type: 'object',
              properties: {
                address: {
                  type: 'string'
                },
                coingecko_coin_id: {
                  type: 'string'
                },
                name: {
                  type: 'string'
                },
                symbol: {
                  type: 'string'
                }
              }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkYes
pool_addressYes
timeframeYes
tokenNoreturn OHLCV for token use this to invert the chart Available values: 'base', 'quote' or token address Default value: 'base'
aggregateNotime period to aggregate each OHLCV Available values (day): `1` Available values (hour): `1` , `4` , `12` Available values (minute): `1` , `5` , `15` Available values (second): `1`, `15`, `30` Default value: 1
before_timestampNoreturn OHLCV data before this timestamp (integer seconds since epoch)
currencyNoreturn OHLCV in USD or quote token Default value: usd
include_empty_intervalsNoinclude empty intervals with no trade data, default: false
limitNonumber of OHLCV results to return, maximum 1000 Default value: 100
jq_filterNoA jq filter to apply to the response to include certain fields. Consult the output schema in the tool description to see the fields that are available. For example: to include only the `name` field in every object of a results array, you can provide ".results[].name". For more information, see the [jq documentation](https://jqlang.org/manual/).
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations provide 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds some behavioral context by emphasizing the 'jq_filter' parameter for performance optimization and specifying that the tool returns OHLCV data for pools. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior (though 'limit' parameter hints at it). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 moderately concise but has structural issues. It front-loads a performance tip about 'jq_filter' before stating the core purpose, which may confuse initial understanding. The inclusion of a full JSON output schema within the description text is verbose and redundant if an output schema field exists (though context signals indicate no output schema, making this somewhat necessary but still cluttered). Sentences are clear but could be better organized.

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's complexity (10 parameters, OHLCV data retrieval) and the absence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the core functionality and includes an embedded response schema, which helps. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, and practical usage examples. With annotations covering read-only safety, the description adds some context but leaves gaps for a data-intensive tool.

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 70%, with detailed descriptions for parameters like 'token', 'aggregate', and 'limit'. The description mentions 'pool address' and 'network' as key inputs but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format examples or constraints for 'network' or 'pool_address'). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description compensates minimally.

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's purpose: 'get the OHLCV chart (Open, High, Low, Close, Volume) of a pool based on the provided pool address on a network.' This specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('OHLCV chart'), and key parameters ('pool address', 'network'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_timeframe_tokens_networks_onchain_ohlcv' or 'get_range_coins_ohlc', which appear to serve similar OHLCV-related functions.

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?

The description provides minimal usage guidance. It includes a performance tip about using 'jq_filter' to reduce response size, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_timeframe_tokens_networks_onchain_ohlcv' for tokens vs. pools, or 'get_range_coins_ohlc' for coins). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/IAcomunIA/MCP_firts'

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