Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_funding_rates

Retrieve perpetual futures funding rates for a symbol across major exchanges including Binance, Bybit, dYdX, Hyperliquid, and Drift.

Instructions

Perps funding across Binance / Bybit / dYdX / Hyperliquid / Drift. Pro tier.

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": "get_funding_rates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYese.g. 'BTC', 'ETH'.
exchangesNoComma-separated exchange list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist. The description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or what exactly is returned (current snapshot? historical? average?). 'Pro tier' is unexplained.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (8 words) but lacks structure. It does not front-load the purpose clearly, and the brevity omits important details.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. The phrase 'Perps funding' is vague, and the agent cannot infer if it returns current rates, historical data, or aggregated metrics.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as 'Perps funding' (perpetual futures funding rates) and lists specific exchanges, making it clear what the tool retrieves. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' and the term 'Pro tier' is ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling 'get_*' tools (e.g., get_price, get_fear_greed), no context is provided for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools