price_spot
Trading and dispatch agents buy this endpoint to obtain the current German EPEX spot price for immediate decisions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Netzhandwerker EU Power Dispatch API
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'obtains' a price, which implies a read operation, but does not mention latency, caching, response format, units, or any other behavioral details. The phrase 'buy' could imply cost but is ambiguous. The description lacks sufficient behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the purpose and audience. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it identifies the resource (current German EPEX spot price) and the intended use. However, it does not specify units (e.g., EUR/MWh), time granularity, or potential delays, which could be important for an agent making immediate decisions. The lack of annotations makes the description the sole source of information, and it leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema description coverage is effectively 100% (empty object). The description correctly implies no parameters are needed, aligning with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool obtains the current German EPEX spot price, with a specific verb ('obtain'), resource ('current German EPEX spot price'), and context ('for immediate decisions'). It distinguishes from siblings like price_forecast (forecast vs. current) and history_prices (historical vs. current).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (trading and dispatch agents, immediate decisions) implied by 'current' and 'immediate'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer this is for live spot price retrieval rather than forecast or historical data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools overlap significantly: buy_dispatch_plan, flexibility_window, optimizer_cheapest_window, and energy_decision all help schedule or choose an energy window, while price_forecast, price_spot, and buy_market_brief provide pricing context. The paired GET-fallback tools (articles_id vs articles_id_post, demand_submit vs demand_submit_post, etc.) create further ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use a verb prefix (buy_, predict_, subscribe_), others start with a noun (price_, grid_, carbon_), and some have non-verb suffixes (_post, _quick). Related tools vary in style, e.g., price_forecast vs predict_negative_price and demand_submit vs demand_submit_post.
Tool Count2/5
With 31 tools, the server feels heavy. While many are distinct paid endpoints, the high number—including near-duplicate variants—exceeds the 25-tool threshold for comfort and suggests an over-sized surface.
Completeness4/5
The energy domain is well covered: real-time and historical prices, forecasts, negative-price prediction, dispatch/flexibility optimization, CO2, renewables, load, subscriptions, and research. Minor gaps exist (e.g., historical CO2, user account handling), but core agent workflows are supported.