QuantXData MCP Server

get_ohlcv

Retrieve aggregated OHLCV candlestick data for any trading pair across 120+ exchanges. Specify exchange, instrument, and interval (1m, 15m, 1h, or 1d) to get historical price data for analysis.

Instructions

Get aggregated OHLCV candlestick data (1m, 15m, 1h, 1d intervals)

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": {
      "exchange": "<exchange>",
      "instrument": "<instrument>",
      "aggregation": "<aggregation>"
    },
    "name": "get_ohlcv"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	End timestamp
`from`	No	Start timestamp
`limit`	No	Max results
`exchange`	Yes	Exchange name
`instrument`	Yes	Trading pair
`aggregation`	Yes	Interval: 1m, 15m, 1h, or 1d

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context. It implies a read operation but does not disclose return format, default time ranges, pagination, or any limitations. This is insufficient for the absence of annotations.

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?

A single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the primary function. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and similar sibling tools. It lacks usage context, comparison with alternatives, and return value details, making it insufficient for confident selection.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description only reiterates the aggregation intervals and adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves aggregated OHLCV candlestick data and lists supported intervals. It identifies a distinct resource (candlesticks) that differs from trades/orderbooks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling historical-data tools like get_histoday.

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 given on when to use this tool instead of get_histoday, get_histohour, or other historical data tools. The description lacks any contextual or comparative usage information.

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

Deploy Server