Recently settled sales for a market. amount is the EXACT settled total (incl. fee) from the on-chain fill where the indexer recorded it, with settledAt the block time and exact: true; otherwise it falls back to the listed ask with exact: false (a decayed Dutch auction settles BELOW its listed amount, so treat inexact rows as an upper bound).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| marketId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the exact vs. fallback amount semantics, fee inclusion, exact:true/false flags, and the upper-bound caveat for inexact rows. This is substantive behavioral context, though it omits ordering and pagination behavior.
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 purpose is front-loaded and the detailed amount caveat is packed into a single dense sentence with no filler. The structure is efficient, though the nested parenthetical makes it slightly harder to parse.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the critical amount semantics well but leaves gaps: result ordering, effective default limit, and behavior when no trades exist. It is adequate for a simple fetch tool but not fully 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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining marketId or limit. It references 'a market' but gives no ID format, no default/effect of limit, and no guidance beyond what the JSON schema already states through type and constraints.
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 tool as returning recently settled sales for a market, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_listings and get_orders. It lacks an explicit verb but the resource, scope, and domain are unambiguous.
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 intended use case is implied: use this when you need recently settled trade/sale amount data for a market. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_listings, get_orders, or other alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions.
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 map cleanly to distinct resources and actions, with the prepare_* group differentiated by their operation suffix. The main ambiguity is get_listing_details, whose description says 'one order' while the name implies a listing, so it could be confused with get_orders or get_listings.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case and follow a verb-first shape using get/list/search/prepare/subscribe/unsubscribe, which is predictable. Minor inconsistencies exist: get_ and list_ are both used for read operations, and prepare_finalize/prepare_cancel pair the prepare_ prefix with a verb rather than a noun.
15 tools is at the high end but each one earns its place: market discovery, order listing, transaction preparation, purchase/offer/cancel flows, Basename finalization, and notification management. There is no obvious padding or missing category that would make the count feel bloated.
The core marketplace lifecycle is well covered: create listings/offers, buy/accept, cancel, finalize, and query listings/orders/positions/trades/names/notifications. The most notable gap is a lack of a synchronous, first-class query for offers received on an owned listing or position; discovery of incoming offers relies on notifications or knowing the bidder's address.
