crypto_latest_tradesRetrieve the most recent trade and taker side for specified crypto pairs, returning compact results for up to 200 tickers to track current market activity.
The latest trade for each crypto pair, with the taker side.
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine content context by specifying one trade per pair and the inclusion of taker side, but says nothing about response shape or ordering beyond that.
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 filler; the scope (per pair) comes before the return detail. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly what leaves the usage and completeness gaps elsewhere.
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?
With only one fully-described parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it does and what it returns. It is incomplete on the one thing that matters here: how it differs from crypto_trades and the other latest_* siblings.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single tickers parameter is fully documented in the schema (BASE/QUOTE format, 1-200 items). The description adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb+resource ("latest trade for each crypto pair") and adds the return detail "with the taker side." An agent can distinguish this snapshot-style tool from crypto_trades, but the description never names the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of full disambiguation.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Nothing tells the agent why to pick this over crypto_trades or crypto_latest_quotes, leaving selection to inference from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.