hummingbot-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct area (e.g., server config, pool exploration, market data, portfolio view, bot/controller/executor management, history search, connector setup). Overlaps are explicitly disambiguated in descriptions, such as the distinction between explore_dex_pools (CLMM pools) and explore_geckoterminal (GeckoTerminal data), and manage_executors vs manage_bots/manage_controllers.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., configure_server, explore_dex_pools, manage_executors). The verbs are descriptive (configure, explore, get, manage, search, set, setup) and clearly indicate the action.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for a trading bot platform. Each tool covers a core responsibility—from setup and market data to portfolio and execution management—without unnecessary bloat or trivial tools.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the main lifecycle (setup, data access, portfolio view, strategy deployment, history search). A minor gap is the lack of an explicit account management tool beyond connector setup, but the overall surface is robust for typical operations.
Average 4.5/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains conditional behavior but does not disclose side effects, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. Partial transparency is achieved.
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 well-structured with a clear Args section and conditional logic. It is reasonably concise, though the conditional explanation could be slightly more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations are provided. The description covers purpose and parameters but lacks return value, error scenarios, or prerequisites. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and constraints. It clarifies conditional requirements but does not provide exhaustive details like value formats.
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 clearly states the tool sets position mode and leverage for an account on a specific exchange, with detailed conditional logic. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated operations.
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 includes conditional usage guidance (mode only, leverage only, or both) and notes trading_pair required only for leverage. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or comparisons with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the actions and parameters but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose potential behavioral traits like error handling or rate limits. It implies safety but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.
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 well-structured with bullet points and code blocks, but it is somewhat lengthy. The first sentence is concise and informative. Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and parameter details. However, it lacks explanation of return values or possible errors. Given the complexity, it is mostly complete but has gaps in output behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning it provides no parameter explanations. The description compensates fully by listing all 11 parameters with clear explanations, default values, and usage contexts (e.g., 'Required for get_pool_info'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states it is for exploring DeFi CLMM pools, listing pools, and getting pool details. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning manage_executors and get_portfolio_overview for other purposes. The verb 'explore' and specific resource 'CLMM pools' are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To manage LP positions, use manage_executors...' and 'To check on-chain positions, use get_portfolio_overview...'. It also clarifies required parameters for each action (e.g., network + pool_address for get_pool_info).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains all actions are read-only data retrieval, and mentions it's free with no API key needed. It does not disclose rate limits or error handling, but for a data exploration tool, the behavioral coverage is adequate.
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 well-structured with a numbered list of actions, brief explanations, and a separate Args section. It is front-loaded with the overall purpose and each sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers all actions and their parameter dependencies. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly list which actions require 'network', but it states 'Required for most actions' which is sufficient for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing all parameters and explaining their relationship to actions in the progressive flow. It adds context beyond the schema, such as when each parameter is required and the meaning of action enum values.
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 clearly states the tool explores DEX market data from GeckoTerminal and enumerates 11 specific actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like explore_dex_pools by being specific to GeckoTerminal and providing a progressive discovery flow.
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 a progressive discovery flow indicating the order of actions and their required parameters. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives, but the structured steps imply appropriate usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that funding_rate requires a '_perpetual' connector suffix and details order book query behavior. No destructive actions are mentioned, which is consistent with a read-only tool. No contradictions.
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 well-structured with sections and bullet points, front-loading the purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose, especially listing all order book query types. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective.
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 complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter dependencies and usage context comprehensively. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable without an output schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter, including conditional requirements (e.g., trading_pairs for 'prices', trading_pair for others), default values, and options (interval, query_type). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states 'Get market data: prices, candles, funding rates, or order book data,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like explore_dex_pools and get_portfolio_overview by focusing on centralized exchange market data.
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 outlines which data type to use and the required parameters for each, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The information is sufficient for an agent to select the correct data type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description implies read-only (historical search) but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Information about pagination (limit, offset) is present but behavioral traits are not fully disclosed.
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?
Well-structured with sections for data types, filters, and examples. Some redundancy but overall clear and easy to navigate.
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?
Covers all 12 parameters with explanations and examples. No output schema, but examples give an idea of return format. Lacks details on response structure but sufficient for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides detailed parameter explanations, common and CLMM-specific filters, default values, and examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states 'Search historical data from the backend database.' Identifies data types and distinguishes from get_portfolio_overview for real-time data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use get_portfolio_overview for real-time current state. Provides examples for different data types and statuses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: no parameters = show, any parameters = update and reconnect, and only provided parameters are changed. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects of reconnection, but it covers the primary behavioral traits.
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 well-structured with a numbered list and bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant or missing content.
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?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, modes, partial update behavior, and parameter examples. Missing details on return value and potential reconnection impacts, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds detailed semantics for all 5 parameters, including example values (e.g., 'macmini', 'localhost', 8000). This compensates fully for the schema gap.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Configure the active Hummingbot API server connection.' It distinguishes two modes: no parameters shows current config, any parameters updates and reconnects. This verb+resource combo is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools.
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 outlines when to use the tool (for configuration) and explains the two usage modes explicitly. It does not list alternatives or explicitly state when not to use, but within the sibling context, no alternative exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It reveals irreversibility of stop_bot ('forever'), real-time updates for update_config, and required confirmation for overrides. Lacks auth/rate limits but covers key behavioral aspects.
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?
Well-structured with bullet-point actions and args, but slightly lengthy. Warning note is front-loaded. Minimal redundancy, earns its length with detailed guidance.
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?
Covers all actions and their required params, defaults, and constraints. Lacks return value description (no output schema), but given 14 params and complexity, the description is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates by detailing each parameter's context, requirements (e.g., bot_name required for many actions), defaults, and dependencies. Some parameters like config_data are described with structure requirements.
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 clearly states it manages controller-based bots with specific actions (deploy, status, logs, etc.), and distinguishes from manage_executors for typical trading strategies, providing a precise verb+resource purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using manage_executors for most strategies and only using this tool when user explicitly asks for 'bot' deployment or needs advanced features like multi-strategy bots, offering clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains behaviors like merged defaults on create, keep_position on stop, and logs only for active executors. It could be more explicit about idempotency or error states, but overall provides substantial transparency.
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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, followed by bullet lists for executor types and actions. It is lengthy but efficient given the many parameters and actions. Each line adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'executor_type' usage).
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 complexity (18 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers actions, behaviors, filters, pagination, and default values. It lacks explicit return value descriptions for each action, but the implications are present (e.g., 'List/filter executors' for search). Overall, quite complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing possible values for 'action', describing 'executor_type' usage, and explaining filters like 'account_names'. Some parameters like 'cursor' and 'limit' are explained but not in depth; nonetheless, it significantly aids understanding.
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 clearly states that this tool manages trading executors with actions like create, search, stop, and configure preferences. It also names specific executor types and positions itself as the default tool for all trading operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage_bots or explore_dex_pools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each action, such as 'Use progressive disclosure to get the full guide and config schema for any executor type before creating' and 'use explore_dex_pools first' for lp_executor. It also explains when not to use certain actions, like using 'stop' with 'keep_position' option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description transparently explains the four-step setup flow and three-step delete flow, including override confirmation. It covers the behavior of each parameter and the progressive nature of the tool, though it could mention required permissions or error handling.
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 well-structured with bullet points for flows and args. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It is concise yet comprehensive enough to guide an agent through complex progressive disclosure.
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 complexity of two flows and five parameters, the description thoroughly covers the progressive steps and parameter dependencies. Lack of output schema is acceptable, but additional context on error handling or credential validation would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role in the progressive disclosure flow, including action options, connector examples, credentials as an object, account selection, and confirm_override usage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Setup or delete an exchange connector for an account with credentials using progressive disclosure.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., configure_server, explore_dex_pools) by focusing specifically on exchange connector management.
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 detailed usage guidelines for both setup and delete flows with step-by-step progressive disclosure. While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, the specialized scope makes the usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool does not affect running bots, which is critical. It also warns about using alternative tools and provides common enum values. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects like concurrency, though these are less critical for a design-time tool.
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 well-structured with clear sections: summary, warning, exploration flow, modification flow, common enum values, and args. It is front-loaded with key information and every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is comprehensive. It covers all parameter semantics, usage flows, behavioral constraints, and enum values. The inclusion of exploration and modification flows provides complete guidance for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so with detailed parameter explanations in the 'Args' section, including usage context, required conditions, and common enum values for nested fields (e.g., position_mode, side, order_type). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 clearly states it manages controller templates and saved configurations (design-time), works with reusable strategy definitions, and does not affect running bots. It distinguishes itself from 'manage_bots' and 'manage_executors' by specifying its scope as design-time vs runtime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises using 'manage_executors' for most trading strategies and to only use controllers when the user explicitly asks for 'controllers' or 'bots', or needs advanced multi-strategy deployments. It also provides a structured exploration and modification flow, guiding the agent on when to use each action/target combination.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even without annotations, the description details internal behavior: parallel data fetching via asyncio.gather, per-pool queries for LP positions, real-time fees, and the impact of the refresh parameter. This fully compensates for missing annotations.
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 well-structured with bullet points and sections, but slightly lengthy. It effectively front-loads the main purpose and each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers data sources, filtering optiools, behavior of refresh, and notes on active-only scope. It is fully contextual for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 8 parameters are described in the Args section with purpose and defaults, despite 0% schema description coverage. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema titles.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a unified portfolio overview with specific sections (balances, positions, orders). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool search_history by noting it only shows active positions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (getting a comprehensive portfolio overview) and directs to search_history for historical data, effectively differentiating use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hummingbot-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/drasticstatic/hummingbot-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/drasticstatic/hummingbot-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hummingbot-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/drasticstatic/hummingbot-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/drasticstatic/hummingbot-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/drasticstatic/hummingbot-mcp'

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