Retrieve last price, bid/ask, and 24-hour stats for a single market such as BTC-USDX-PERP. Use it to check current market conditions without credentials.
Get the ticker (last price, bid/ask, 24h stats) for one market, e.g. "BTC-USDX-PERP". Public — no credentials needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market_id | Yes | Market id, e.g. "BTC-USDX-PERP". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context that the endpoint is public and requires no credentials, and it lists the data returned. It does not cover rate limits, error behavior, or idempotency, but for a simple public read those gaps are minor.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and example are front-loaded, and the public/no-credentials note follows efficiently.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough: it states what is fetched, gives an example market id, and confirms no credentials are needed. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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% for the single market_id parameter. The description repeats the example 'BTC-USDX-PERP' already present in the schema and adds no format or validation details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (ticker for one market), and enumerates the returned fields (last price, bid/ask, 24h stats). It implicitly distinguishes from plural siblings like fetch_tickers by saying 'for one market,' but it does not explicitly differentiate from the singular sibling get_ticker.
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?
The description says 'Public — no credentials needed,' giving a prerequisite context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch_tickers or get_ticker, leaving usage implied only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.