QuantXData MCP Server

get_histominute

Retrieves minute-level OHLCV data for cryptocurrency pairs from a specified exchange, with optional aggregation and historical timestamps.

Instructions

Get minute-level 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_histominute"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only adds 'CryptoCompare-compatible format' as a behavioral trait, but does not disclose pagination behavior, defaults, authentication needs, or explicitly confirm read-only nature. The 'Get' verb hints at safety but leaves substantial gaps.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward data retrieval tool.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain return format, result structure, and usage constraints. It only mentions Cryptocompare compatibility without describing what that means, and it lacks details on limit, aggregation, or relationships to sibling tools.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), meeting the baseline. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema's minimal labels like 'From symbol' and 'Exchange name' already provide.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'minute-level OHLCV data', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_histohour and get_histoday. The addition of 'CryptoCompare-compatible format' further clarifies the output style.

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?

The minute-level granularity is explicitly stated, making it obvious when this tool is appropriate compared to hourly or daily variants. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, though the sibling tool names provide enough implicit context.

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

Deploy Server