List active MM quotes for a market.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"market_id": "<market_id>"
},
"name": "pax.mm_quotes_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation and discloses that only 'active' quotes are returned (a filter), but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, result limits, or ordering. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 short sentence with no wasted words and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 trivial one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: an agent can guess it returns active MM quotes for the given market. It is missing return-shape hints, pagination behavior, and auth expectations, but the tool's inherent simplicity limits the damage.
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% on the single market_id parameter. The phrase 'for a market' merely restates what the schema name already conveys and gives no format guidance (slug, numeric ID, address?) or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active MM quotes') with a scope qualifier ('for a market'). This distinguishes it reasonably well from the sibling pax.mm_quote_post, which is the write counterpart, though the 'MM' abbreviation is left unexplained.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative pax.mm_quote_post. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read side of the MM quote pair.
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.