coin-mcp

list_derivatives_exchanges

Compare derivatives exchanges (futures/perpetual/options) ranked by open interest or volume. Get venue details including open interest, 24h volume, number of pairs, and establishment year.

Instructions

List derivatives (futures/perp/options) exchanges ranked by open interest or volume.

Use to compare derivatives venues (Binance Futures, Bybit, OKX, dYdX, etc.) by size.

Args: order: Sort order. per_page: 1..250 per page. page: Page number.

Returns: Array of derivatives exchanges with id, name, open_interest_btc, trade_volume_24h_btc, number_of_perpetual_pairs, number_of_futures_pairs, year_established, country, url.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_derivatives_exchanges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`order`	No	open_interest_btc_desc
`per_page`	No
`page`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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 only states 'List' (implying read-only) but omits details on caching, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with a short introductory sentence and clear bullet-like parameter and return listings. No extraneous information, though structure could be slightly improved with formatting.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with pagination, the description covers parameters and explicitly lists return fields (compensating for lack of output schema). It lacks error handling details but is complete enough for typical usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Sort order' for order, '1..250 per page' for per_page), adding some value beyond the schema defaults and enums, but not deeply elaborating.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists derivatives exchanges (futures/perp/options) ranked by open interest or volume, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_exchanges_directory by focusing on derivatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use to compare derivatives venues... by size,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, which would improve guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server