Get the live CC/USDC order book. Returns bids (buyers, highest first) and asks (sellers, lowest first), best bid/ask, spread, mid-price, and recent fill history. Use this to find the best price before placing or filling an order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Price levels to show per side (max 50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the data returned (bids, asks, spread, etc.) and that it's live. Missing details like polling behavior, rate limits, or response size, but adequately describes outcome.
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?
Two well-constructed sentences with no redundancy. Front-loads the purpose and immediately explains return value. Every word adds value.
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?
The description explains the return structure (bids, asks, etc.) despite no output schema. The parameter is simple. Given the number of sibling tools, this description covers the necessary context for an informed call.
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 single parameter 'depth' is already described in the input schema (default 10, max 50). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.
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 it retrieves the live CC/USDC order book with specific data (bids, asks, best bid/ask, spread, mid-price, recent fill history). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_cc_market or get_market_depth by focusing on order book depth and pricing.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use this to find the best price before placing or filling an order,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context and sibling names imply this is the primary order book tool.
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.