Skip to main content
Glama
IAcomunIA

CoinGecko MCP Server

by IAcomunIA

get_timeframe_tokens_networks_onchain_ohlcv

Read-only

Retrieve OHLCV chart data (Open, High, Low, Close, Volume) for any cryptocurrency token by providing its blockchain address and network. Supports multiple timeframes and filtering options for analyzing price movements.

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 token based on the provided token 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
token_addressYes
timeframeYes
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
include_inactive_sourceNoinclude token data from inactive pools using the most recent swap, 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds some behavioral context by emphasizing the 'jq_filter' parameter for performance optimization, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness that would be valuable for a complex financial data tool. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate additional value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is poorly structured and not front-loaded. It starts with a performance tip about 'jq_filter' before stating the tool's purpose, which may confuse the agent. The inclusion of a full JSON output schema within the description is redundant and disrupts flow, as this should be handled separately in structured fields. The core purpose is buried, making it inefficient for quick understanding.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and complex financial data operations, the description is inadequate. It lacks explanation of return values (e.g., the structure of 'ohlcv_list'), error handling, or typical use cases. While annotations cover read-only safety, the description doesn't compensate for the missing output schema or provide sufficient context for effective agent use, given the tool's complexity.

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 most parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'aggregate', 'currency', 'limit'). The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, except for the general mention of 'token address' and 'network'. It fails to explain critical parameters like 'timeframe' or 'before_timestamp' in the description text. Given the high schema coverage, 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.

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 token based on the provided token address on a network.' This specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('OHLCV chart'), and key inputs ('token address', 'network'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_timeframe_pools_networks_onchain_ohlcv' which appears to serve a similar purpose for pools rather than tokens.

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' but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_range_coins_ohlc' or 'get_timeframe_pools_networks_onchain_ohlcv' from the sibling list). No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions is given, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for tool selection.

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