Report a fill you already signed and broadcast yourself (via partner_swap_quote) so it appears in Otto's records. Otto does NOT verify the transaction on-chain in this version — it trusts the partner it already approved. side: buy | sell. tx_hash: the transaction hash from your own broadcast.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| qty | No | ||
| usd | No | ||
| side | Yes | ||
| price | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| tx_hash | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that Otto trusts the partner without on-chain verification, which is a critical trust model detail. The annotations are all false and provide no meaningful transparency, so the description carries the burden and mostly fulfills it by explaining the trust assumption and the act of reporting to records.
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 concise, getting straight to the point with the action and key parameters. The format is efficient, but the first sentence is slightly dense with parenthetical references. Overall, it earns its place 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?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what response to expect, whether the report can be overwritten, what happens if the same tx_hash is reported twice, or how qty/usd/price relate to the fill. The trust model is disclosed, but other essential operational details are missing.
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 explains 'side' and 'tx_hash', but the input schema has 8 parameters total, and the description does not cover qty, usd, price, reason, ticker, or api_key. The schema itself has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description needed to compensate but only covers 25% of the parameters. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent on how to populate the other fields.
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 action: reporting a fill that was already signed and broadcast via partner_swap_quote, so it appears in Otto's records. It distinguishes itself from the sibling partner_swap_quote tool by explicitly referencing that tool and clarifying this is the follow-up reporting step.
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 context on when to use this tool: after the user has already signed and broadcast a transaction themselves via partner_swap_quote. It also warns that Otto does not verify the transaction on-chain, which is important for setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or scenarios where another tool would be preferred.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that separate e.g. hood_basis_snapshot from hood_basis_history and perp_spot_basis. A few clusters like flow_summary vs token_flows and multiple gap/basis tools could still cause slight ambiguity, but the descriptions are strong enough to guide correct selection.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with domain prefixes (hood_, agent_, competition_, partner_), and verbs are used predictably (report_, execute_, get_, etc.). There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic names.
39 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a very broad domain (market data, signals, trading execution, competition, partner APIs, agent reporting). While many tools earn their place, a few could be consolidated (e.g., gap/basis variants), making it feel heavier than necessary for typical usage.
The surface covers the core lifecycle: market data, signals, paper/real/partner trading, position tracking, and performance reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit wallet balance or order cancellation), but the core workflows are well-covered and derived endpoints fill most needs.
