tradesBitfinex crypto exchange — recent trade tape for a pair (e.g. 'tBTCUSD'): trade ID, timestamp, amount, and price per execution. Optional start/end (ms epoch), limit, and sort order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| symbol | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes |
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive hint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that start/end are in milliseconds epoch and mentions 'recent' trades, but it does not disclose default time windows, pagination behavior, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.
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 that front-loads the exchange and data type, includes an example, and lists optional parameters. Every phrase is informative with no filler.
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 is relatively simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description conveys the core purpose and all parameter names. However, it leaves some gaps such as the default time range implied by 'recent' and the exact semantics of sort order. Given the output schema exists, this is nearly 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?
The description names all parameters (symbol via 'pair', start/end, limit, sort) and specifies that start/end are in ms epoch, which adds meaning beyond the schema (which has no descriptions). However, it does not explain the values for sort order (e.g., -1 vs 1) or the meaning of 'recent' when start/end are omitted. With 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation earns a 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 identifies the resource (Bitfinex crypto exchange) and the specific data returned (recent trade tape with trade ID, timestamp, amount, price). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like candles or ticker by focusing on per-execution trades. The example symbol 'tBTCUSD' clarifies the expected input format.
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 trade data for a pair, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ticker or candles, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is only implicit through the description of the data content.
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.
Many tools overlap or are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and there are multiple prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) with fine-grained but confusing distinctions. The mix of Bitfinex market data tools with an unrelated Pipeworx research suite makes tool selection genuinely ambiguous.
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the semantic pattern is inconsistent: bare nouns (ticker, candles, trades, stats), verb_noun phrases (validate_claim, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), and large prefixed families (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*) coexist. This mixed convention gives no reliable cue to a tool's function.
42 tools is excessive for a server named 'Bitfinex'. Only about a dozen tools actually relate to the crypto exchange (ticker, candles, trades, book, liquidations, etc.); the rest are a grab bag of Pipeworx research, prediction markets, memory, and subscription features. The count bloats the surface and obscures the server's purpose.
The set has no coherent scope. For a Bitfinex server, there are no account/trading tools, only market data. For the buried Pipeworx functionality, the surface is extensive but unrelated to Bitfinex. The overall result is an incomplete hodgepodge with no clear lifecycle or workflow for a single domain.