get_market_overviewComprehensive market overview: prices, availability, allowed durations, order constraints, and transaction types. Useful for agents to understand what they can purchase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavioral traits. It states what data is included but never explicitly says it is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor does it mention any limitations like data freshness or scope constraints. The term 'overview' implies a read action but does not explicitly disclose the behavioral profile.
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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the tool's purpose and contents, and the second sentence adding a concise use-case. Every word adds value, with no repetition of the tool name or title.
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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a surprisingly complete overview of what the agent will learn: prices, availability, allowed durations, order constraints, and transaction types. It lacks details on response format, but that is largely implied by 'overview' and the list of data points.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides no semantic information. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description reinforces what the caller can expect from the tool, compensating for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 a 'comprehensive market overview' and enumerates the specific data it provides (prices, availability, allowed durations, order constraints, transaction types). This distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like get_prices and get_available_resources, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 statement 'Useful for agents to understand what they can purchase' provides a clear context for when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous and helps the agent decide to call this tool for market-level discovery rather than individual data endpoints.
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 distinct purposes, but some overlap exists: get_prices and get_market_overview both provide pricing info, and get_available_resources, get_pool_delegations, and get_onchain_status all relate to resource status. Descriptions clarify these distinctions adequately.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_balance, register_pool, configure_auto_selling). Minor inconsistency: 'broadcast_signed_permission_tx' uses the abbreviation 'tx' while 'broadcast_transaction' uses the full word 'transaction'.
27 tools is excessive for a server with this scope, exceeding the 25-tool threshold. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_prices and get_market_overview, or the various resource-status getters). The high count makes the tool surface harder to navigate.
The server covers the core domain well: registration, balance management, pool registration and configuration, energy purchase, order tracking, swap, and voting. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for configuring auto actions (stake/claim) or cancelling orders, but these do not severely hinder core workflows.