Fill an existing open order on the CC/USDC book (taker action). If filling a SELL order: you buy CC and transfer USDC. If filling a BUY order: you sell CC and receive USDC. Partial fills supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| order_id | Yes | UUID of the order to fill (from get_cc_orderbook) | |
| fill_cogs | No | How many cogs to fill (optional — omit to fill entire order) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses taker action, trade direction, and partial fills. It lacks detail on auth needs, error states, or idempotency, providing only basic behavioral context.
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 plus one line, each adding distinct value: main action, buy/sell explanation, partial fills. No filler text, and front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the action but omits response format and prerequisites. Adequate but not comprehensive for robust agent usage.
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 50% (only order_id and fill_cogs described). The description adds no information about api_key or agent_id, failing to compensate for missing schema details.
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 tool fills an existing open order on the CC/USDC book as a taker action, with specific buy/sell behaviors. It distinguishes from sibling tools like place_cc_order (creates) and cancel_cc_order (cancels).
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 description implies usage context by stating 'Fill an existing open order' and mentions partial fills. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like creating a new order.
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 target distinct actions or resources, but there is potential overlap between 'browse_jobs_with_economics', 'find_matching_jobs', and 'list_open_jobs', which all relate to job discovery. Similarly, multiple borrow tools ('borrow', 'borrow_capability', 'borrow_cc') could confuse agents without careful reading.
Tool names consistently use snake_case with verb_noun pattern. Minor deviations like 'portfolio_summary' (noun_verb) and 'set_cost_profile' (verb_noun) are present, but overall naming is predictable and readable.
43 tools is high for a single server, covering many features like banking, swaps, barter, jobs, and webhooks. While the breadth justifies the count, some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple borrow tools) to reduce cognitive load.
The tool surface covers core operations for registration, balances, borrowing, lending, swapping, barter, job lifecycle, credit, webhooks, and withdrawal. Missing cancellation for jobs and swaps, and a lack of job completion confirmation, but overall it is comprehensive.