List all perpetual futures contracts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of records to return | |
| offset | No | List offset, starting from 0 | |
| settle | No | Settlement currency |
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?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description need not restate safety traits. It does add the resource scope ('perpetual futures contracts') but fails to disclose that 'all' is subject to pagination via limit/offset, which could mislead an agent expecting a single complete list.
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?
One short sentence containing exactly the essential information: verb, resource, and scope. Zero fluff, appropriately front-loaded, and easy to parse.
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 list tool with comprehensive schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, the gap between 'all' and the pagination parameters, plus the lack of an output schema, leaves minor room for ambiguity about return structure and pagination behavior, so it is not a perfect 5.
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 descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, settle) with 100% coverage, so the description carries no parameter-specific information. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting for parameter understanding.
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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('perpetual futures contracts'), which directly matches the tool name and distinguishes it from the singular get_fx_contract sibling. The scope ('all') is stated, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 clearly implies this tool is for enumerating FX perpetual futures contracts, which is sufficient context for a simple list operation. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer this over related list tools like cex_fx_list_contract_stats, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.
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.