Bithumb MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like balance, orders, or transactions, but there is some overlap between post_orders and post_order_detail, and post_ticker_user and post_user_transactions could be confused as both relate to member transaction information. Descriptions help clarify, but minor ambiguity exists.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' for public data and 'post_' for private actions, but the naming is slightly inconsistent as 'post_account' and 'post_place' use generic verbs, while others like 'post_market_buy' are more specific. Overall, the pattern is predictable and readable.
Tool Count4/5
With 19 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a cryptocurrency exchange server covering public data and private trading operations. It includes essential functions like order management, balance checks, and transactions, though it might feel a bit heavy compared to simpler servers.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for a cryptocurrency exchange domain, including public market data (e.g., ticker, orderbook), private account management (e.g., balance, wallet), and full order lifecycle (place, cancel, detail). No obvious gaps are present, enabling agents to handle typical trading workflows effectively.
Average 2.9/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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.json to 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

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 'Private' access but doesn't elaborate on authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific 'account information and fees' are returned. For a tool that likely involves sensitive financial data, this lack of detail 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point with a single phrase, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly stating it's for retrieving account details rather than just 'Get', and the '(Private)' tag might be better integrated into the main purpose statement for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given 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 incomplete. It doesn't specify the format or structure of the returned 'account information and fees', nor does it address potential side effects, error handling, or authentication needs. Given the complexity of financial data retrieval, more context is needed for effective agent use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'coinCode' clearly documented as a required cryptocurrency symbol. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why this parameter is needed or how it affects the output. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get member account information and fees' which provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('member account information and fees'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_balance' or 'post_user_transactions' that might also retrieve account-related data, leaving some ambiguity about its specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes '(Private)' which implies restricted access, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_balance' or 'post_user_transactions'. No explicit guidance on prerequisites, context, or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent with minimal direction on appropriate usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Private' which hints at authentication needs, but doesn't explicitly state permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks behavioral details like response format or whether it's idempotent.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the '(Private)' qualifier could be better integrated or explained. It's efficient but could be slightly more polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given 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 details are returned, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a tool that likely involves sensitive order data, more context is needed.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain why both orderId and orderCurrency are required or how they interact). 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves details of a specific member order, which is a clear purpose. However, it doesn't specify what details are included or how it differs from sibling tools like 'post_orders' (which might list multiple orders). The '(Private)' qualifier adds some context but isn't fully explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'post_orders' or 'post_user_transactions'.
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. It mentions 'Private', hinting at sensitive data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. This is inadequate for a tool handling private wallet addresses.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the parenthetical '(Private)' is ambiguous and could be more clearly integrated. It avoids unnecessary words, though it lacks structural elements like examples or caveats.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given 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 the tool returns (e.g., address format, associated metadata), behavioral aspects like error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'coinCode' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why this parameter is needed or how it affects the wallet address retrieval.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('member's coin deposit wallet address'), but is vague about what 'Private' means and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'post_account' or 'post_withdrawal_coin' that might also involve wallet operations. It specifies the purpose but lacks precision about scope and uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 'get_balance' or 'post_withdrawal_coin', there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation and '(Public)' suggests no authentication needed, the description doesn't specify rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this includes historical or real-time data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is reflected in other dimension scores.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple potentially overlapping sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'status' means (pending, completed, failed?), what timeframes are covered, or how this differs from related tools. The '(Public)' qualifier is helpful but doesn't compensate for other gaps.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'orderCurrency'. The description doesn't add any additional context about parameter usage beyond what's in the schema. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('asset deposit/withdrawal status'), and includes the scope qualifier '(Public)'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_balance' or 'get_transaction_history' which might also relate to asset status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 multiple sibling tools like 'get_balance' and 'get_transaction_history' that could overlap with asset status concepts, there's no indication of what distinguishes this specific tool or when it should be preferred.
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 of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions '(Private)' which hints at authentication requirements, but doesn't explicitly state this. It doesn't disclose rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a financial tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, making it easy to parse. However, the '(Private)' tag could be more clearly integrated or explained. While efficient, it might be too brief given the lack of other context about this financial tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial balance retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the balance returns in, whether it includes multiple currencies, authentication requirements, or error handling. Given the complexity of financial tools and complete lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With one parameter and complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'account balance', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on balance retrieval rather than other account operations like transactions or orders. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar-sounding tools like 'get_assets_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 multiple sibling tools available (like get_assets_status, get_transaction_history, post_account), there's no indication of when balance retrieval is appropriate versus other account information tools. The '(Private)' tag suggests authentication may be needed but doesn't clarify prerequisites.
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 only states that the data is 'Public', implying no authentication requirements, but doesn't cover rate limits, response format, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the important 'Public' qualifier. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given 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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what candlestick data includes (OHLCV values), how results are structured, whether there are pagination or date range limitations, or error handling. The '(Public)' hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for effective use.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide extra value like explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Candlestick data') with the qualifier '(Public)' indicating it's publicly accessible data. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_ticker or get_orderbook by specifying candlestick data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific but could be more distinctive about what makes candlestick data unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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_ticker or get_orderbook. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or any context for selecting candlestick data over other market data types. The '(Public)' hint suggests no authentication is needed, but this isn't elaborated.
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. While '(Public)' suggests no authentication is needed, it doesn't disclose rate limits, response format, whether it's real-time or delayed data, or any behavioral constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the important '(Public)' qualifier. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a public data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'order book information' includes (bids/asks, depth levels, timestamps), nor does it address typical concerns like rate limits, data freshness, or response format that would help an agent use it effectively.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single 'coinCode' parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('order book information') with the qualifier '(Public)' indicating it's a public data endpoint. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ticker or get_candlestick that also retrieve public market data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 multiple sibling tools for market data (get_ticker, get_candlestick) and no indication of what distinguishes order book information from other market data types, the agent receives no usage 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '(Public)' suggests this doesn't require authentication, it doesn't specify rate limits, response format, error conditions, or whether this is a real-time or cached data source. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just 6 words plus a parenthetical. Every element earns its place: the action, resource, and access level are all communicated efficiently with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given 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 should do more to compensate. While the tool appears simple (single parameter, no nested objects), it doesn't explain what 'ticker information' actually returns or how this differs from other data retrieval tools. For a cryptocurrency context with multiple similar tools, this leaves important contextual gaps.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'coinCode' well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value regarding parameter usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('cryptocurrency ticker information'), and the parenthetical '(Public)' adds useful context about access level. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'post_ticker_user' or explain what 'ticker information' specifically includes compared to other data retrieval tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 multiple sibling tools that retrieve different types of cryptocurrency data (get_balance, get_candlestick, get_orderbook, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it's the appropriate choice over other data retrieval options.
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 ('Cancel') but lacks details on permissions needed, whether cancellation is reversible, rate limits, or response format. The '(Private)' hint adds minimal context, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more front-loaded by integrating the '(Private)' qualifier into the main action for better clarity, slightly affecting structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and return values, which are critical for an agent to invoke 'post_cancel' correctly in a trading context with siblings like 'post_place'.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (type, orderId, orderCurrency). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and resource ('an order'), with the qualifier '(Private)' suggesting restricted access. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential cancellation alternatives among its siblings, such as 'post_market_buy/sell' which might also affect orders, leaving some ambiguity about its specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 exclusions. Given siblings like 'post_place' (likely for creating orders) and 'post_orders' (possibly for listing), there's no indication of how 'post_cancel' fits into the workflow, leaving usage context implied at best.
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 'market buy order' which implies immediate execution at current prices, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, transaction fees, order confirmation, or what happens on execution failure. For a financial transaction tool, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose ('Place a market buy order') and adding only the essential 'Private' qualifier. Every word earns its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after order placement, return values, error conditions, or security implications. The 'Private' hint is vague without context about authentication or account requirements.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('units' and 'orderCurrency'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Place a market buy order') and specifies it's a 'Private' operation, which distinguishes it from public trading functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'post_market_sell' beyond the buy/sell distinction, which is implied but not stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 'post_market_sell' or other order types (e.g., limit orders). It mentions 'Private' but doesn't explain what that means in context or when private vs. public trading is appropriate.
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 information. It identifies this as a sell operation but doesn't disclose critical details like execution speed, price determination (market vs limit), whether it's immediate or queued, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on execution failure. The '(Private)' tag is unexplained and adds confusion rather than clarity.
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 extremely concise at just 5 words, but the '(Private)' tag feels like unexplained jargon that doesn't earn its place. The core purpose is front-loaded clearly, but the additional tag adds ambiguity without value. Still, it avoids verbosity and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial trading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like: what market it operates in, execution guarantees, response format, error conditions, or relationship to account balance/authentication. The '(Private)' tag suggests some restriction but doesn't explain it, leaving significant gaps for a tool that performs financial transactions.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain unit conventions (whole coins vs fractions), valid currency symbols beyond the examples, or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does complete documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Place a market sell order') and specifies the resource type ('order'), though it doesn't explicitly mention cryptocurrency trading context. It distinguishes from sibling 'post_market_buy' by specifying 'sell', but doesn't differentiate from other order-related tools like 'post_place' or 'post_cancel'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 explain when to choose market sell vs limit sell (if available), when to use this versus 'post_market_buy', or how it relates to other order management tools like 'post_cancel' or 'post_orders'. The '(Private)' tag is ambiguous and doesn't provide clear usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it's 'Private', which hints at authentication needs, but doesn't elaborate on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read/write operation. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by including key usage notes, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given 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 'Private' entails, the return format, or how to handle the optional parameters effectively. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured context, more detail is needed.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('member's order details'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'post_order_detail' or 'get_transaction_history', which might also retrieve order-related information, so it misses full 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 Guidelines2/5
Does 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, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Private' operation, hinting at authentication needs, but doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, execution guarantees, or what happens on success/failure. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, though the '(Private)' tag could be more informative. No wasted sentences, but could benefit from slightly more structure to separate purpose from behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial order placement tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after order placement, return values, error conditions, or how this integrates with the broader trading system shown in sibling tools. The '(Private)' hint is minimal compensation for missing critical context.
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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how price interacts with type) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Place a limit order') and resource (implied trading order), specifying it's for buy/sell operations. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like post_market_buy/sell or post_cancel, which are related order operations. The '(Private)' tag adds some context but doesn't fully differentiate purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 post_market_buy, post_market_sell, or post_cancel. It mentions 'limit order' but doesn't explain when a limit order is preferable to market orders or how it differs from other order-related tools in the sibling list.
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 '(Private)' which hints at authentication requirements, but fails to detail rate limits, response format, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a relevant qualifier, making it appropriately sized and structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of financial transaction data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'recent' means, the format of returned information, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'orderCurrency'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('member's recent virtual asset transaction information'), with the qualifier '(Private)' indicating access restrictions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_transaction_history' or 'post_user_transactions', which appear related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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_transaction_history' or 'post_user_transactions'. The '(Private)' hint implies authentication needs but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'Private', suggesting authentication requirements, but doesn't specify what type of authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the history data returns. For a tool that accesses private user transaction data, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose upfront. The '(Private)' qualifier is appropriately placed. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more context given the lack of annotations and sibling tool ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools with potentially overlapping functionality, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transaction completion history' includes versus other transaction tools, doesn't specify authentication requirements despite the 'Private' hint, and provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. For a private data retrieval tool in a crowded namespace, this is inadequate.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get member's transaction completion history' with the qualifier '(Private)', indicating it retrieves private user data. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'transaction completion history', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction_history' or 'post_order_detail', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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_transaction_history' and 'post_order_detail' that might handle similar data, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other transaction-related tools in the server.
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 the tool is 'Private', hinting at authentication needs, but doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, whether withdrawals are reversible, confirmation times, or potential fees. For a financial transaction tool, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just five words—with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Request a coin withdrawal') and adds a brief qualifier ('Private'). 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a financial withdrawal operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, transaction irreversibility, processing times, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with significant real-world consequences, this leaves too many gaps.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify format constraints for 'address' or 'destination', or explain 'units' beyond quantity). 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Request a coin withdrawal') and specifies it's a private operation, which distinguishes it from public API calls. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_withdrawal_krw' (KRW withdrawal) or 'post_wallet_address' (address generation), 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 Guidelines2/5
Does 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 sufficient balance), exclusions (e.g., not for fiat withdrawals), or compare it to sibling tools like 'post_withdrawal_krw' for different currency types. The '(Private)' hint implies authentication but doesn't state this explicitly.
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. It mentions 'Private' and 'Deprecated', hinting at access restrictions and obsolescence, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, irreversible nature of withdrawals, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a financial transaction tool.
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 very concise with a single phrase, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating the purpose from the deprecated note for clarity, though it remains efficient with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a financial withdrawal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., security, effects), response handling, and usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it safely and effectively.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (bank, account, price). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Request a KRW withdrawal') and specifies the currency (KRW), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'post_withdrawal_coin'. However, it doesn't specify the target resource (e.g., from a Bithumb account to a bank account), making it slightly less specific than ideal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Deprecated by Bithumb', which implies this tool should not be used in favor of newer alternatives, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it or name specific alternatives. No guidance is provided on prerequisites or context 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves public information, which implies it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or describe other traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and public nature, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given 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 adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and public scope, yet lacks details on what specific index information is returned, how it's structured, or any behavioral nuances, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there's no parameter documentation needed. The description adds value by clarifying the tool fetches index information (BTMI, BTAI) without requiring inputs, which is helpful context beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Bithumb Index (BTMI, BTAI) information'), and specifies it's for public data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticker' or 'get_orderbook' that also retrieve public 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by indicating this is for 'Public' information, which might imply it doesn't require authentication unlike some sibling tools (e.g., 'post_account'). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives, or context about how this tool differs from other data-retrieval siblings, leaving usage unclear.
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 it's for public data without detailing behavioral traits like rate limits, data recency, pagination, or error conditions. It doesn't disclose whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get') or other operational constraints, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the purpose and scope ('Public'). It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral context (e.g., what 'recent' means, data format), making it inadequate for full agent understanding despite low complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'coinCode' well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it filters by cryptocurrency, which is already covered. Baseline 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent transaction history'), with the qualifier '(Public)' suggesting it retrieves public rather than user-specific data. It distinguishes from siblings like 'post_user_transactions' (likely user-specific) and 'get_balance' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for public transaction history, but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'post_user_transactions' or other data-fetching tools. It provides basic context (public data) but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.
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:

[![bithumb-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zereight/bithumb-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zereight/bithumb-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bithumb-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zereight/bithumb-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zereight/bithumb-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/zereight/bithumb-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server