crypto_latest_barsFetch current one-minute bars for specified crypto pairs, returning OHLC data for each ticker to support market monitoring and analysis.
The latest one-minute bar for each crypto pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickers | Yes | Crypto pairs as BASE/QUOTE, e.g. ["BTC/USD"] (1-200). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that bars are one-minute and per-pair, but says nothing about what happens when a ticker is unknown, max 200 batching behavior at runtime, or return shape. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a modest addition.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it is arguably too thin to be a strong definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool in a dense crypto/market family with many near-namesake siblings, the description does not disambiguate from crypto_bars, crypto_latest_quotes, crypto_snapshots, or market_latest_bars, and provides no return-value or error context. No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of this burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the tickers parameter format (BASE/QUOTE, 1-200 items) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, which is baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific resource and scope: the latest one-minute bar for each crypto pair. That distinguishes it from time-series siblings like crypto_bars, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or note that it's a snapshot rather than a range. Clear verb+resource, but no sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus crypto_bars (historical bars) or crypto_latest_quotes. The 'latest' framing implies a snapshot use case, but the agent is left to infer that vs. history or quotes. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.