Get ticker information for futures contracts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settle | No | Settlement currency | |
| contract | No | Futures contract name. Only returns data for this contract if specified |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as pagination, return format, or whether 'ticker information' includes specific fields. Since annotations cover the key traits, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description does not disclose anything beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and resource ('ticker information'), making it immediately clear. There is no waste, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only market data tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what the tool returns ('ticker information for futures contracts'). Minor gaps: it does not mention that the tool supports filtering by contract via the 'contract' parameter, and it omits the 'FX' qualifier, which could cause confusion with other futures products. However, these are not critical given the schema and tool name.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Settlement currency' and 'Futures contract name' with note about filtering). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Get ticker information for futures contracts.' It distinguishes this as a ticker endpoint, but it does not explicitly mention that this is for FX futures, which is a slight gap given the tool name includes 'fx'. Sibling tools like cex_fx_get_fx_contract and cex_spot_get_spot_tickers exist, so the description could have been more precise about the asset class.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify that this is the appropriate tool for FX futures tickers, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback tools. The sibling list contains many similar market data tools (candlesticks, funding rates, order books), but the description does not help disambiguate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool is clearly scoped by its domain prefix (spot, fx, options, etc.) and resource type, with no two tools serving the same purpose. Even similar data types like candlesticks and order books are unambiguously separated by market.
The naming follows a strong pattern: cex_<domain>_<verb>_<resource>. However, the use of 'get' vs 'list' is occasionally inconsistent (e.g., cex_fx_get_fx_tickers vs cex_spot_list_currencies), and some names are verbose with version suffixes like 'v4'.
With 63 tools, this is an extreme count that will overwhelm an agent. While the breadth covers many product lines, the vast number of endpoints makes selection difficult and violates the typical scope for an MCP server.
The tool surface comprehensively covers public market data across spot, futures, options, delivery, earn, margin, lending, launch, and social products. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical trade depth, no single-ticker convenience methods), but the core data needs are fully addressed.