Autonomous xRocket CEX trading inside operator-set limits, plus live market data over MCP
List public assets or inspect one exact asset identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | Exact xRocket asset identifier; TON is currently TONCOIN |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs to add less. It adds useful context such as 'public assets' and the TON/TONCOIN identifier note, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or the shape of an individual asset inspection—though an output schema is present.
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 that front-loads the core action and covers both invocation modes. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 optional-parameter read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is essentially sufficient. The main missing piece is explicit scenario guidance for choosing list vs. inspect, but this is partly inferable and minor given the schema and hints.
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%, and the asset parameter is already documented with 'Exact xRocket asset identifier; TON is currently TONCOIN'. The description's phrase 'exact asset identifier' largely echoes the schema without adding new semantic details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states specific actions—'List public assets' or 'inspect one exact asset identifier'—and makes the tool's scope clear. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the resource domain (assets vs. market data) inherently separates it from the listed market tools.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xrocket_market_symbols. The only usage clue is implied by the optional asset parameter (omit it to list, provide it to inspect), but no when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get public OHLCV candles for an exact ISO-8601 time window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| endAt | Yes | ||
| symbol | Yes | Exact current xRocket symbol, for example GRAM-USDT | |
| startAt | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'public' nature and the exact ISO-8601 time requirement, which is complementary context. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but these are minor given the annotations and output schema. Moderate additional value beyond 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?
A single, dense sentence that leads with the core action and resource, then adds the crucial time-window constraint. No redundant words or filler; it is optimally concise and front-loaded.
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 a simple read-only tool with an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and input requirements. It does not mention maximum time ranges or response structure, but those are typically derivable from the output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for historical candle retrieval.
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 only 25%, with only 'symbol' documented. The description adds the ISO-8601 format hint for startAt and endAt, which is useful and not present in the schema field descriptions. It does not explain the 'type' parameter beyond the enum, nor clarify relationships like startAt must precede endAt. It partially compensates for the low coverage but could be more explicit.
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 states the specific action 'Get', the resource 'public OHLCV candles', and the scoping constraint 'exact ISO-8601 time window'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like orderbook or tickers by specifying 'candles', which is a unique resource among the listed siblings.
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 a temporal scoping detail but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or complementary usage. An agent must infer it is for historical price data from 'candles' and 'time window', but there is no explicit comparison or contextual trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a public order-book snapshot. Precision must be valid for the selected pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| symbol | Yes | Exact current xRocket symbol, for example GRAM-USDT | |
| precision | No | Exact positive decimal string; never use a JSON number |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the snapshot is 'public', implying no authentication needed, and notes that precision must be valid for the pair, which is a validation constraint. It does not elaborate on return format or side effects, but the output schema covers that.
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 extremely concise, two sentences, front-loading the primary action. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to meaning.
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 tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain that depth and precision are optional, nor their interplay, and it fails to provide any context on when to use this tool. The lack of usage guidance and parameter relationships makes it incomplete for optimal agent selection.
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 coverage is 67%: symbol and precision have descriptions, depth has none but is constrained by const values. The description adds the dependency of precision on the selected pair, which is useful beyond the schema. It does not add anything for depth, leaving that to the schema's enumerated values.
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 the tool retrieves a public order-book snapshot, which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from siblings like market_candles or market_tickers by explicitly mentioning 'order-book', though it does not name an alternative for comparison.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other market data tools. It only states a constraint about precision, without indicating when an agent should prefer the order book over, say, the market snapshot or tickers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Resolve an exact symbol or base asset and return market rules, ticker, best bid/ask, recent trades, and fees in one read-only call. Exact symbols win; ambiguous assets are never guessed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| market | Yes | Exact symbol such as GRAM-USDT, or a base asset such as GRAM | |
| precision | No | Exact positive decimal string; never use a JSON number |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful resolution behavior: exact symbols win and ambiguous assets are never guessed, which is not present in 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?
Two tightly constructed sentences deliver the core purpose, the resolution rule, and the guarantee about ambiguous assets. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.
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 presence of an output schema and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is largely complete. It could be more explicit about what happens when an ambiguous asset is encountered, e.g., whether an error is returned or disambiguation is required, but the 'never guessed' statement provides a practical boundary.
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 schema already documents market and precision, with the market description itself mentioning exact symbols like GRAM-USDT or base assets like GRAM. The description reinforces the market resolution policy but adds no detail about the depth or precision parameters, so it does not substantially increase semantic coverage beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a resource ('an exact symbol or base asset'), and a clear deliverable: market rules, ticker, best bid/ask, recent trades, and fees in one read-only call. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as a composite snapshot rather than a single-purpose endpoint.
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 phrase 'in one read-only call' clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: when a consolidated snapshot is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like xrocket_market_tickers or xrocket_market_orderbook, but the aggregation framing gives enough context for routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all exchange symbols or inspect one exact symbol and its trading constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Exact current xRocket symbol, for example GRAM-USDT |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by explaining the conditional behavior (all symbols vs. one symbol plus trading constraints), but it does not disclose potential edge cases like large response sizes or symbol formatting requirements.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary behavior and conveys both invocation modes without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has only one optional parameter, strong read-only annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers both call patterns and the relevant domain (symbols and trading constraints), though it could add a brief note about when not to use it or how results are paginated.
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 schema already describes the only parameter completely, including an example ('GRAM-USDT'). The description adds that supplying the parameter switches to single-symbol inspection, but this is a minor addition over the schema's existing coverage, 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 states a specific resource ('exchange symbols') and two clear behaviors: listing all symbols or inspecting one exact symbol with its trading constraints. This makes its purpose distinct from sibling market-data tools like xrocket_market_candles or xrocket_market_tickers.
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 implies the two usage modes based on whether the optional `symbol` parameter is provided, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as xrocket_asset_info or xrocket_market_tickers. The usage is clear enough for a simple read tool, but alternatives are not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get public 24-hour ticker data, optionally for a repeated list of symbols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context such as 'public' and '24-hour', but it does not disclose behavior like what happens when symbols is omitted, response shape, or any rate considerations. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it appropriately concise. The phrase 'optionally for a repeated list of symbols' is slightly awkward and vague, which keeps it from being a perfect example of concise clarity.
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 low parameter complexity and strong annotations, the tool is not severely under-described, but the missing explanation of the optional symbols behavior is a real gap. With many sibling market tools, a bit more context about what distinguishes tickers from snapshot or candles would make the definition more complete.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only says 'optionally for a repeated list of symbols.' The schema provides an example symbol, but the description does not clarify the meaning of 'repeated', default behavior when no symbols are given, or how symbols affect the result.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'public 24-hour ticker data', making the core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like xrocket_market_snapshot or xrocket_market_candles, but 'ticker data' is a distinct market-data concept.
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 implies use when 24-hour ticker data is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling market-data tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get recent public trades for one symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Exact current xRocket symbol, for example GRAM-USDT |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds 'public' and 'recent' as behavioral context but does not disclose details like result limits, pagination, or time-window boundaries.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and scope.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that 'recent' is not quantified, but this is unlikely to prevent correct invocation.
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 schema already describes the only parameter thoroughly, including an example ('GRAM-USDT'), so schema coverage is complete. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating that it operates on one symbol.
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 identifies the operation ('Get recent public trades') and the scope ('for one symbol'), which is specific and actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling market-data tools, but the resource 'public trades' is unambiguous versus candles, orderbook, or tickers.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving recent public trade data for a single symbol, which gives reasonable context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving sibling differentiation to the tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return xRocket sign-in links, the local autonomous trading setup, and canonical API documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the tool returns (sign-in links, setup, docs), which goes 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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and immediately states the resource and deliverables. Every phrase contributes meaning.
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?
With zero parameters, a read-only annotation set, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly. The vague phrase 'local autonomous trading setup' leaves minor room for interpretation, but the canonical API docs reference mitigates this.
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?
This tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and nothing here detracts from that.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and names three concrete deliverables (sign-in links, local autonomous trading setup, canonical API documentation), which clearly distinguishes it from the market-data sibling tools. 'Local autonomous trading setup' is slightly vague, so it does not quite earn a 5.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The title 'Set up xRocket trading' and the sibling list make the onboarding-vs-market-data intent inferable, but the guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get public crypto-asset rates in one fiat base currency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | Yes | Fiat base currency, for example USD | |
| assets | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds modest context with 'public' (implying no auth requirement) and 'in one fiat base currency' (single-base denomination), which goes slightly beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word earns its place. Appropriate size for a low-complexity public read tool whose schema and annotations carry the remaining detail.
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?
Rich annotations and the presence of an output schema lower the burden, and the schema documents both parameters. However, the description leaves unspecified what happens when the optional assets parameter is omitted, and it offers no routing clues among the market-data sibling tools.
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 coverage is 50%: 'base' is well-described ('Fiat base currency, for example USD') and the 'assets' items carry a useful description ('Exact xRocket asset identifier; TON is currently TONCOIN'). The tool description reinforces that base is a fiat currency but adds nothing about the optional assets filter's semantics or default behavior when omitted.
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 names a specific action ('Get') and resource ('public crypto-asset rates'), with a scoping detail ('in one fiat base currency') that hints at its distinguishing behavior. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling xrocket_market_tickers, which could also plausibly return rates.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the nine sibling tools, several of which (xrocket_market_tickers, xrocket_market_snapshot, xrocket_asset_info) overlap semantically. No alternatives, exclusions, or condition-based routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get exchange trade-fee data, optionally for repeated symbols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which lowers the bar. The description adds only the optional-symbol scoping detail, but it does not clarify the default behavior when symbols are omitted or any other request constraints.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core operation and the only parameter's optional nature.
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 one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the tool is close to complete. However, the vague phrase 'repeated symbols' and the unstated default behavior when symbols are omitted leave room for an agent to mis-scope its request.
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 description tells the agent that symbols are optional and can be repeated, which is a small addition beyond the schema. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, it does not fully compensate by explaining matching behavior, the all-symbols default, or how duplicates are handled.
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 the operation as 'Get exchange trade-fee data,' naming both the action and the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on candles, tickers, trades, or rates.
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 use case is implied by naming the resource, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or what happens when no symbols are passed. There are no exclusions or alternative-tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
xrocket_asset_infoxrocket_market_candlesxrocket_market_orderbookxrocket_market_snapshotxrocket_market_symbolsxrocket_market_tickersxrocket_market_tradesxrocket_onboarding_linksxrocket_ratesxrocket_trade_feesClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Agent-native crypto market-data over MCP+REST: order flow, whales, liquidations, calibrated scores
No-KYC managed MCP for AI agents: sandboxed TypeScript trading SDK, isolated sub-accounts, futures.
Crypto trading intelligence MCP — 34+ endpoints, x402 pay-per-use, AI agent strategy & execution
Trade 16 crypto exchanges + MetaTrader 5 from your AI assistant via one MCP connection.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a generally distinct market data need, and the xrocket_market_* prefix helps separate candles, order book, symbols, tickers, and trades. However, xrocket_market_snapshot bundles ticker, order book, trades, and fees, so agents could confuse its scope with the more specific tools.
Most tools follow a clear xrocket_market_<resource> pattern, which makes the set predictable. Minor deviations like xrocket_asset_info, xrocket_rates, xrocket_trade_fees, and xrocket_onboarding_links break the otherwise uniform prefix convention slightly.
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for a public market-data and onboarding server. Each tool covers a meaningful slice of reference data or market data without redundancy.
The public market-data surface is strong: assets, symbols, candles, order books, trades, tickers, fees, and rates are all covered. As an 'Exchange MCP' it lacks private account/order-management tools, though the onboarding link to autonomous trading setup suggests that is intentionally out of scope.
