QuantXData MCP Server

get_histohour

Retrieve hourly open, high, low, close, and volume (OHLCV) data for cryptocurrency pairs from a chosen exchange. Provides historical price data in a CryptoCompare-compatible format for market analysis.

Instructions

Get hourly OHLCV data (CryptoCompare-compatible format)

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": {
      "fsym": "<fsym>",
      "tsym": "<tsym>",
      "e": "<e>"
    },
    "name": "get_histohour"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`e`	Yes	Exchange name
`fsym`	Yes	From symbol
`toTs`	No	End timestamp (Unix)
`tsym`	Yes	To symbol
`limit`	No	Max results
`aggregate`	No	Aggregation period

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description is the only source. It adds minimal context such as 'CryptoCompare-compatible format' but doesn't disclose pagination, default limits, aggregation behavior, or response structure beyond that.

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?

One short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It lacks information on return format details, default behavior for optional parameters, and how aggregate affects results.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It doesn't, but the schema suffices.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'hourly OHLCV data', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_histoday and get_histominute by granularity and from trade/orderbook tools by OHLCV.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The hourly granularity is implied by the name and description, but there's no guidance on choosing this over get_ohlcv or other granularities.

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

Deploy Server