delta_peekFree. Check whether a USD spot pair is covered and inspect the exact $0.01 Base USDC preflight price before paying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trade | Yes | Execution policy for one intended USD-pair spot order. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose that the tool is free and that it checks coverage/inspects an exact price, suggesting a non-mutating preview. However, it does not detail how coverage is determined, whether the price is guaranteed, or how the nested execution-policy fields affect the result.
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, direct sentence that front-loads 'Free' and packs in the core behavior (coverage check + price inspection) without unnecessary filler. Every clause contributes useful information.
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 free preflight preview tool, the high-level purpose is well captured, but there is no output schema. The description does not mention what the response will include or how the nested policy parameters influence coverage/price. Given the complexity of the trade input object, a bit more detail about what is done with the execution policy would improve completeness.
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% for the top-level trade object, which provides a solid baseline. The description adds context about checking the pair and preflight price, but it does not explain the semantic role of the nested execution-policy fields (thresholds, venue, side, etc.). The schema itself already carries most of the parameter meaning.
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 action ('check whether a USD spot pair is covered and inspect the exact $0.01 Base USDC preflight price'). It also signals free, read-only preview behavior before payment. It doesn't explicitly name sibling delta_preflight as the paid alternative, but 'before paying' distinguishes its purpose.
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 'before paying' implies this tool is a preliminary, free check prior to a paid delta_preflight call, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives. A user can infer when to use it, but the instruction is not made explicit.
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.
The two tools are unmistakably distinct: delta_peek provides a free preview of coverage and price, while delta_preflight executes the full paid check returning a signed PASS/BLOCK/UNKNOWN. No overlap in purpose or output.
Both tools follow the same 'delta_' prefix with a descriptive lowercase verb ('peek', 'preflight'), maintaining a clear and predictable snake_case convention. The naming style is perfectly consistent.
With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a full service, but it matches a narrowly scoped purpose (preflight checks). It is borderline given the typical 3-15 tool range, but not extreme.
The tools cover the core workflow: a free peek to inspect basics and a paid full preflight for live checks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no batch check or historical query), but the primary use case is fully supported.