ChainPulse Korea

krw_listing_changes

Track KRW-market listings and delistings on Upbit and Bithumb over a lookback window to identify newly tradable or removed pairs shortly after market-list changes.

Instructions

KRW listing and delisting changes: new listings and removals across the full KRW market list of Upbit and Bithumb over the last N days.

Note: detection runs every 5 minutes on the open market list, so a change is reported within minutes of the pair becoming tradable — this is NOT the announcement-level latency of a dedicated news bot.

Args: days: lookback window in days, default 7, max 30 venue: upbit | bithumb | both (default both)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "krw_listing_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`venue`	No		both

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the detection cadence (every 5 minutes on the open market list), the resulting latency profile (minutes after a pair becomes tradable), and explicitly disclaims announcement-level latency. What is missing is anything about deduplication of repeated events or how many changes a single call may return, which the output schema presumably covers.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by a caveat that genuinely earns its place, then an Args block. The unbroken line wrapping in the source makes it slightly harder to scan, but no sentence is padding.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: scope, cadence, latency expectations, and both parameter domains are covered. The remaining gap is what exactly constitutes a 'change' event and how removals versus additions are distinguished in results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents the days default of 7 and hard cap of 30, and enumerates the venue options (upbit | bithumb | both) with a default of both, none of which appear in the bare schema. It stops short of explaining edge semantics such as whether a window boundary is inclusive.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('KRW listing and delisting changes: new listings and removals') and scopes it to the full KRW market list of Upbit and Bithumb. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like korea_premium and upbit_caution_watchlist, which cover price premium and caution flags rather than listing events.

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 makes the tool's niche clear (listing/delisting event detection) and implicitly contrasts it with a 'dedicated news bot', but it never says when to prefer this tool over a sibling or when it is the wrong choice. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server