PCM
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific exchange operations like data retrieval (get-ticker, get-ohlcv), order placement (place-market-order, place-futures-market-order), and configuration (set-proxy-config, set-log-level). However, some overlap exists between clear-cache and clear-exchange-cache, which could cause minor confusion as both relate to cache management.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern throughout, such as get-ticker, set-leverage, and clear-cache. This uniform naming convention makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in style or structure.
Tool Count3/5With 24 tools, the count is borderline high for a cryptocurrency exchange server, potentially feeling heavy as it includes many specific operations. While comprehensive, it might overwhelm agents with its breadth, though it aligns with the domain's complexity.
Completeness4/5The tool set provides extensive coverage for cryptocurrency exchange operations, including data fetching, order management, and configuration. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of tools for canceling orders or managing account details beyond balance, but agents can likely work around these with the available tools.
Average 2.9/5 across 24 of 24 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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.jsonto 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
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set logging level' implies a configuration change but reveals nothing about persistence (e.g., temporary vs. permanent), scope (e.g., global vs. per-session), side effects, permissions required, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. For conciseness alone, it's optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the level (e.g., confirmation message, error responses), whether changes are reversible, or system impact. For a tool that modifies system behavior, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'level' fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no explanation of what each log level means or typical use cases). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set logging level' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'set-log-level' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'set' and resource 'logging level' but lacks specificity about what system or component it affects, and doesn't distinguish it from potential sibling tools (though no obvious logging siblings exist in the provided list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. It doesn't mention why one would change logging levels, what impact it has, or any related tools for monitoring logs. With no usage context provided, this is minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the output takes. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'information and status' includes (e.g., uptime, fees, supported markets), making it hard for an agent to understand the tool's full context. For a tool with 2 parameters and rich sibling tools, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (exchange ID and market type with enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters affect the information retrieved. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get exchange information and status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('exchange information and status'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list-exchanges' (which might list available exchanges) or 'get-market-types' (which might get types for a specific exchange).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list-exchanges' and 'get-market-types', the description doesn't clarify if this is for general exchange metadata, operational status, or something else, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Place a futures market order' implies a financial transaction with real-world consequences, but the description provides zero information about authentication requirements (though parameters include apiKey/secret), rate limits, execution guarantees, error conditions, or what happens when the order executes. This is dangerously inadequate for a tool that could execute financial trades.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for such a straightforward statement of purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex financial trading tool with 8 parameters (including authentication credentials), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'futures market order' entails, what happens after placement, potential risks, or expected outcomes. The agent would have insufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('place') and resource ('futures market order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'place-market-order' which appears to be a similar but potentially different tool (spot vs futures). The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'place-market-order' and various configuration tools (set-leverage, set-margin-mode, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific futures market order tool should be selected over other order placement or configuration tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements (though parameters suggest API keys are needed), rate limits, error conditions, or what specific balance information is returned. For a financial tool with authentication parameters, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with authentication parameters (apiKey, secret) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the balance information returns (e.g., structured data with currencies/amounts), whether it includes all account types, or any prerequisites for use. The combination of financial data retrieval with authentication requirements demands more contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('account balance from a crypto exchange'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get-funding-rates' or 'get-ticker' that also retrieve financial data from exchanges, missing an opportunity for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get-funding-rates' or 'get-ticker' that retrieve different types of exchange data, there's no indication of when account balance retrieval is appropriate versus other financial queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—such as whether it returns real-time or cached data, error handling for invalid symbols, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get ticker information') and specifies the key differentiator ('for multiple trading pairs at once'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of financial data retrieval, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'ticker information' includes (e.g., price, volume, timestamp), how results are structured, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'get-exchange-info'. For a tool in a server with many trading-related siblings, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (exchange, marketType, symbols) with types, enums, and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'multiple trading pairs' relates to the 'symbols' array. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('ticker information for multiple trading pairs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'get-ticker' by specifying 'multiple trading pairs at once', though it doesn't explicitly mention other batch operations or differentiate from other data-fetching tools like 'get-ohlcv' or 'get-orderbook'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when batch retrieval is preferred over individual 'get-ticker' calls, nor does it reference other sibling tools like 'get-markets' or 'get-exchange-info' that might provide related information. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what format the response takes. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what funding rates are, why they matter, what the return format looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity of financial data and the lack of structured metadata, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter context beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain why certain exchanges or symbols might be needed, or how the marketType affects results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current funding rates for perpetual contracts'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-ticker' or 'get-ohlcv' that also retrieve market data, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-ticker' and 'get-ohlcv' that serve different market data purposes, there's no indication of when funding rates are needed or what distinguishes this tool from other data retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get futures leverage tiers'), without mentioning whether it's read-only, safe, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential financial implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get futures leverage tiers for trading pairs') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, authentication, or rate limits, nor does it hint at the return format (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool in a financial context with multiple parameters, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'exchange' or 'symbol' values are used. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('futures leverage tiers for trading pairs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'set-leverage' (which modifies leverage) or 'get-exchange-info' (which might include leverage data), so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'set-leverage' (for modification) or 'get-exchange-info' (which might overlap), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get all available markets' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how pagination works with the 'page' and 'pageSize' parameters, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., list structure, data fields), behavioral aspects like pagination or rate limits, or how it differs from siblings. This leaves the agent with incomplete context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'exchange', 'page', and 'pageSize'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of market data returned or pagination details. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all available markets for an exchange'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get-exchange-info' or 'get-market-types', which might provide overlapping or related market data, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-exchange-info' and 'get-market-types' that could offer similar or complementary market-related data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned data. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states the tool's function ('Get OHLCV candlestick data for a trading pair') in a clear and structured manner, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of financial data retrieval and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error handling, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., array of candlesticks with OHLCV fields). For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (exchange, symbol, timeframe, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that parameters are needed for OHLCV data retrieval. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('OHLCV candlestick data for a trading pair'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the type of financial data (OHLCV candlesticks) and the target (trading pair), which distinguishes it from other data retrieval tools like get-ticker or get-orderbook. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get-trades also retrieves trading data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when OHLCV data is needed compared to other market data tools like get-ticker (real-time prices) or get-trades (individual transactions), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure with bids/asks). For a tool interacting with external exchanges, this omission is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of fetching market data from exchanges, the description is incomplete. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., order book structure). With no annotations and a tool that likely involves network calls and rate limits, more context is needed for the agent to use it effectively, leaving gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'exchange', 'limit', and 'symbol'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these are needed for order book retrieval. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('market order book for a trading pair'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-ticker' or 'get-trades' by specifying order book data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get-exchange-info' might also provide order book details), so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'get-orderbook' over 'get-ticker' for market data, or prerequisites like needing exchange access. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it retrieves 'recent trades' but doesn't disclose what 'recent' means (e.g., last hour, last 100 trades), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how data is returned (e.g., sorted, paginated). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external APIs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get recent trades') and efficiently specifies the scope ('for a trading pair'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what 'recent' means, how trades are ordered, whether there are limitations (e.g., max 'limit'), or what the output structure looks like. Given the complexity of financial data retrieval, this leaves too much unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'exchange' and 'symbol' must be compatible) or provide examples beyond the schema's basic descriptions. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('recent trades for a trading pair'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-ohlcv' or 'get-orderbook' which also retrieve market data, but the specific focus on trades is clear enough for basic distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-ohlcv' for historical price data or 'get-orderbook' for depth information. It mentions 'recent trades' but doesn't specify timeframes or use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'place a market order' but doesn't explain key traits like whether it's a read/write operation, potential risks (e.g., financial loss), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a financial trading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving the AI agent poorly equipped to handle this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('place') and resource ('market order on an exchange'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'place-futures-market-order', which handles a specific market type, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'place-futures-market-order' or other order types. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication or exchange setup, which are critical for proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It implies a write operation ('Set') but doesn't specify whether this affects open positions, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a financial trading tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that modifies financial trading settings with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical context like side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'marketType' relates to 'exchange' and 'symbol'). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('leverage for futures trading'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set-margin-mode' or 'set-market-type' by focusing specifically on leverage, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open position or specific account permissions), nor does it reference related tools like 'set-margin-mode' or 'get-leverage-tiers' for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or operational constraints. Given the complexity of trading configuration and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid combinations, or clarify edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('margin mode for futures trading'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set-leverage' or 'set-market-type' which also configure trading parameters, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an authenticated session), typical use cases, or comparison to sibling tools like 'set-leverage' that might be used in similar trading configuration scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set default market type for all exchanges' implies a system-wide configuration change, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, potential rate limits, or how this affects existing trading operations. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool that changes system-wide exchange settings with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the market type, whether the change is persistent, what errors might occur, or how to verify the change was applied. The context signals indicate this is a significant configuration operation that needs more explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (marketType enum values, clearCache default behavior). This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('default market type for all exchanges'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set-leverage' or 'set-margin-mode' which also configure exchange settings, leaving room for potential confusion about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-market-types' (for reading) or other configuration tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool would be preferred over other market-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool tests a proxy connection but doesn't describe what the test involves (e.g., network ping, API call simulation), expected outcomes, error handling, or side effects (e.g., logging, rate limits). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the exchange parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a testing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the test entails, what results to expect (e.g., success/failure indicators), or how it interacts with other tools like 'set-proxy-config'. For a tool that likely involves network operations and error scenarios, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'exchange' fully documented in the schema as 'Exchange ID to test connection with (e.g., binance)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats 'specified exchange' without elaborating on format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Test') and the resource ('proxy connection'), specifying it's for a particular exchange. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-proxy-config' or 'set-proxy-config' by focusing on testing rather than configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., it could be more specific about what 'test' entails compared to general connectivity checks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured proxy first), when testing is appropriate (e.g., after setup or troubleshooting), or alternatives like checking proxy config directly. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, what format the statistics are returned in, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns data. It doesn't explain what statistics are included, their format, or any behavioral context. For a tool with zero structured metadata, this minimal description leaves too many unanswered questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters that don't exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('CCXT cache statistics'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear-cache' or 'clear-exchange-cache' that also involve cache operations, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'clear-cache' and 'clear-exchange-cache' available, there's no indication whether this is for monitoring versus maintenance, or any prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clear CCXT cache' implies a destructive operation that removes cached data, but it doesn't specify what gets cleared (e.g., exchange metadata, rate limits), whether it's reversible, if it requires special permissions, or any side effects like temporary performance impact. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'clear'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'CCXT cache' entails, what data is affected, or what the result looks like (e.g., success confirmation, error handling). For a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clear CCXT cache' clearly states the action (clear) and the resource (CCXT cache), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'clear-exchange-cache', but the specific mention of 'CCXT' provides some differentiation. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to invoke it (e.g., after configuration changes, to free memory, or resolve stale data), nor does it reference the sibling tool 'clear-exchange-cache' for comparison. Usage context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format. It's a simple read operation, but more context would help the agent understand its behavior better.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks details on output or behavioral context. It's adequate for a basic read tool but could be more informative to fully guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'exchange' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('market types supported by an exchange'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-exchange-info' or 'get-markets', which might provide overlapping or related information, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get-exchange-info' or 'get-markets', which could also reveal market types. The description implies usage for retrieving market types but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'current' information, implying it's a read operation, but doesn't mention rate limits, caching behavior, or what specific ticker data is returned (e.g., price, volume). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what ticker information is returned (e.g., price, volume, timestamp) or behavioral aspects like caching. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current ticker information for a trading pair'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch-get-tickers' or 'get-exchange-info', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get-ticker' over 'batch-get-tickers' for multiple pairs or 'get-exchange-info' for exchange metadata, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s] the current proxy configuration' but doesn't describe what the configuration includes, whether it's read-only, if it requires permissions, or how it behaves (e.g., returns an error if no proxy is set). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the current proxy configuration'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain what the proxy configuration includes, potential return values, or error conditions. For a retrieval tool in a financial/API context, more context about the configuration structure would be helpful, though the absence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and no misalignment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current proxy configuration'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set-proxy-config' or 'test-proxy-connection', but the verb 'Get' versus 'set'/'test' provides implicit distinction. This is specific enough for a simple retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when it's appropriate (e.g., before setting or testing proxy config), or contrast it with siblings like 'set-proxy-config' or 'test-proxy-connection'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format entails (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context, which could be important for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional annotations or schema support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but since there are no parameters, it effectively compensates by stating the tool's scope clearly, warranting a score above the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all available cryptocurrency exchanges'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-exchange-info' or 'get-markets', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get-exchange-info' or 'get-markets' from the sibling list. It lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('configure') without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a write operation (implied), requires admin permissions, affects all exchanges globally, has side effects, or how changes propagate. The description is minimal, failing to compensate 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary details or repetition, achieving optimal conciseness for its content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: no mention of system-wide impact, no error handling, no confirmation of changes, and no details on what 'configure' entails beyond the basic verb. The schema covers parameters, but behavioral and operational context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact (e.g., url required only if enabled=true).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Configure proxy settings for all exchanges' clearly states the verb ('configure') and resource ('proxy settings'), with scope ('for all exchanges'). It distinguishes from sibling get-proxy-config (read vs. write). However, it doesn't specify what 'configure' entails beyond the title, missing nuance like enabling/disabling vs. full setup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when proxy settings need configuration for exchanges, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like test-proxy-connection or clear-exchange-cache. No prerequisites, warnings, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a destructive action ('Clear') and the purpose, but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., temporary performance impact), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the action and purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage hint but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error cases. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that performs a cache-clearing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add param info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear') and target resource ('exchange instance cache') with a purpose ('to apply configuration changes'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'clear-cache' by specifying 'exchange instance' scope, though not explicitly contrasting them. The purpose is specific but could be more detailed about what 'exchange instance' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('to apply configuration changes'), suggesting this tool should be used after configuration updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'clear-cache' or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/rand-tech/pcm'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server