Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bitvavo-mcp

bitvavo-mcp

by aderik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_trades

Retrieve your filled trades for a specific market, sorted newest first. Includes timestamp, side, amount, price, fee, and fee currency.

Instructions

Your own filled trades on a specific market (e.g. 'BTC-EUR'). Newest first. Each trade has timestamp, side, amount, price, fee, feeCurrency.

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": {
      "market": "<market>"
    },
    "name": "get_trades"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
marketYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

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 burden and does well by stating the return fields and ordering. It doesn't explain limit behavior or pagination, but for a simple read-only tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, no wasted words.

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 simple getter with no output schema, it covers purpose, ordering, and fields. Lacks detail on limit/pagination, but overall adequate for selection and invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should explain both parameters. It addresses 'market' implicitly but never explains 'limit' (e.g., that it controls the number of trades returned). This is a notable gap.

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 tool returns your own filled trades for a specific market, with ordering (newest first) and data fields. 'Filled trades' distinguishes it from sibling tools like open orders.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context (own filled trades on a specific market) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The distinction from open orders is implied though not stated directly.

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