Retrieve OHLC candlestick data for any Stellar DEX trading pair, specifying base and counter assets, time resolution, and candle count.
Get OHLC trade aggregation data for a Stellar DEX asset pair
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of candles | |
| baseAsset | Yes | Base asset: "XLM" or "CODE:ISSUER" | |
| resolution | No | Candle resolution | 1h |
| counterAsset | Yes | Counter asset: "XLM" or "CODE:ISSUER" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states what data are returned. It does not disclose response shape, ordering, pagination, resolution handling quirks, or Stellar-specific behaviors; 'Get' hints at a read operation but little else.
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 focused sentence with no redundancy. The two most important qualifiers, 'OHLC' and 'Stellar DEX asset pair', appear front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately visible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description does state the core output concept ('OHLC trade aggregation data') and the schema covers all invocation parameters. It is short of richer return-shape or timing details, but the plain read mission plus complete parameter schema is enough to call it correctly.
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 schema already documents each parameter, including asset formats, default/maximum limit, and the resolution enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the OHLC/candle framing already present in the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('OHLC trade aggregation data for a Stellar DEX asset pair'), making the tool's output unmistakable. The OHLC qualifier also separates it from sibling price tools like getPrice/getVWAP without needing an explicit comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as getPriceHistory, getVWAP, or getPrice. An agent must infer selection from the tool name and context rather than from explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.