Bitcompare MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Stablecoin peg stability

stablecoin_peg_stability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Track a stablecoin's peg deviation history and stability stats over 7d, 30d, or 90d windows to assess how closely it holds its target price.

Instructions

Peg deviation history and stability stats for a stablecoin.

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "stablecoin_peg_stability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`period`	No	Stability window, default "30d"
`symbol`	Yes	Stablecoin symbol (e.g. "usdt", "usdc")

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`symbol`	Yes
`history`	Yes	Recent peg deviation samples
`deviation`	Yes	Current peg deviation in basis points
`pegTarget`	Yes	Target peg in USD (typically 1.0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0Nov 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / period

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Stability window, default \"30d\"",
+  "enum": [
+    "7d",
+    "30d",
+    "90d"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / window

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Stability window, default \"30d\"",
-  "enum": [
-    "7d",
-    "30d",
-    "90d"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedv1.1.0Jun 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating 'history and stats', which is consistent but redundant.

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, concise sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the core function. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, good annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient to inform the agent of the tool's purpose and data type. It omits return format details, but those are covered by the output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('symbol' and 'period'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description mentions 'stability stats' and 'history', which loosely aligns with the parameters but adds no new meaning.

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 provides 'peg deviation history and stability stats' for a stablecoin, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'stablecoin_index', which may serve a similar purpose.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stablecoin_index' or 'coin_history'. There are no explicit usage contexts or exclusions.

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