Skip to main content
Glama
bitbankinc

bitbank-lab-mcp

Official
by bitbankinc

get_transactions

Retrieve recent or historical trades (transactions) for a trading pair, with filters for price and amount. Date-based queries require a completed UTC day.

Instructions

[Transactions / Trades] 市場の約定履歴(transactions / recent trades)を取得。直近60件 or 日付指定。金額・価格でフィルタ可能。

制約(bitbank 側仕様): date 指定(YYYYMMDD)は UTC 暦日アーカイブで、当該 UTC 日の完了後(JST 09:00 以降)にのみ公開される。進行中の UTC 日を指定すると 404。当日分の約定は date 省略(latest, 直近約60件)でのみ取得可能。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoYYYYMMDD; omit for latest
pairNobtc_jpy
viewNoview は content の量を制御します。量は summary < detailed < full の順で、full は常にそのツールの最重量です。view が structuredContent から**フィールドを削ることはありません**(その view でしか計算しないデータを足すツールはあり、その場合は当該 view の説明に明記しています)。content[0].text は LLM への唯一のチャネルなので、軽い view は「短い表示」ではなく「LLM が明細を受け取らない」を意味します。 - full(既定): 返却した全約定を 1 行 1 件で列挙 + 件数サマリ + 切り捨て警告 + スコープフッタ。本ツールの最重量。 - summary: 非推奨。view=full を使うこと。0.6.0 で削除予定。旧既定値で、実体は full と同じ全件列挙(挙動は完全に不変で、名前だけを階梯に合わせた)。集計のみの軽量 summary は将来別リリースで opt-in 専用として新設予定。 - items: 非推奨。view=full + format=json を使うこと。0.6.0 で削除予定。挙動は view=full + format=json と同じ(content は全件の pretty JSON のみで、件数サマリとスコープフッタは出ない)。full
limitNo
formatNocontent の形式。text(既定): 散文 / json: pretty JSON。json は機械可読性のために**トークンを払う**オプションで、同じデータでも text より必ず多くなります(削減オプションではありません)。量は format ではなく view と limit が決めます。text
maxPriceNo
minPriceNo
maxAmountNo
minAmountNo
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It discloses the date archive behavior, the 404 case, and the default limit of 60 for latest. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, pagination, or the exact response structure. The disclosed behavior is important but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a clear heading and purpose. It is structured into two paragraphs: purpose and constraints. The language is efficient, with no filler. The second paragraph adds necessary caveats without excess. Slightly verbose due to the detailed date explanation, but it earns its place.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the date constraint and general filters but omits details on return format, field meanings, and behavior of optional parameters. The absence of output schema information is a significant gap for an agent deciding how to use the results.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates poorly. It mentions generic filters for amount and price but does not explain individual parameters like limit, pair, or the four max/min fields. The date parameter is explained well in the constraints section, but other parameters lack clarity, forcing the agent to infer from names alone.

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 a specific verb and resource: retrieving transaction/trade history. It specifies the scope (latest 60 or by date) and that amount/price filters are available. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_ticker and get_orderbook by focusing on trades, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description provides clear usage context: it explains when to use date (completed UTC days) and when to omit it (current day, using latest 60). It also warns about the 404 error for ongoing UTC days. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, so usage guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bitbankinc/bitbank-lab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server