Get a single options settlement record
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | Yes | Settlement timestamp (Unix timestamp in seconds) | |
| contract | Yes | Options contract name | |
| underlying | Yes | Underlying asset name, e.g. BTC_USDT |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as data format, rate limits, or specific constraints. It essentially restates the name without offering extra insights.
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 sentence, quickly communicating the core purpose without verbosity. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.
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?
While the schema and annotations cover parameter meanings and safety, the description doesn't explain what a settlement record is, how to interpret the 'at' timestamp beyond schema, or when to use this get tool versus the list tool. For a simple tool this is minimally viable, but gaps remain.
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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters ('Settlement timestamp', 'Options contract name', 'Underlying asset name'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and resource ('single options settlement record'), distinguishing from list tools by the word 'single'. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or context, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like cex_options_list_options_settlements. The description lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.
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.