List public options trades
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End timestamp in seconds | |
| from | No | Start timestamp in seconds | |
| type | No | Option type: C for call, P for put | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of records to return | |
| offset | No | List offset, starting from 0 | |
| contract | No | Options contract name |
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 and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior or rate limiting, but with annotations covering the safety profile, the minimal description is acceptable.
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 unnecessary words, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given the 100% schema coverage and annotations indicating a safe read-only operation, the description is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's function. It doesn't explain return format but no output schema exists, and the description is not misleading. However, it's very minimal and could mention the option to filter by contract or timeframe.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 6 parameters (to, from, type, limit, offset, contract) have descriptions within the schema. The tool description doesn't add parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'public options trades', making the tool's purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like cex_options_list_options_tickers or cex_options_list_options_settlements.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it neither mentions use cases nor excludes other tools. There are many similar list tools in the sibling set, and this description doesn't help the agent choose among them.
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.