Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-kraken

mcp-kraken

by XavierBeheydt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_deposit_addresses

Obtain deposit addresses for a given asset and deposit method to receive cryptocurrencies into your account.

Instructions

Return deposit addresses for asset via method.

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": {
      "asset": "<asset>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "get_deposit_addresses"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetYesAsset code (e.g. `XBT`).
methodYesDeposit method as returned by `get_deposit_methods`.
newNoGenerate a new address if True.
amountNoOptional amount, for methods that bind addresses to amounts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states a read operation without disclosing any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or required permissions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. While it is front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very incomplete. It does not explain what the return data looks like, constraints, or how the optional parameters affect 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions asset and method but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify the purpose of 'new' or 'amount' parameters.

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 verb 'Return' and resource 'deposit addresses', and specifies the key parameters 'asset' and 'method'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_deposit_methods or get_deposit_status.

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. There is no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools