Open (pending/active) limit orders on both sides of a token pair, largest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenA | Yes | first token address of the pair (0x-hex) | |
| tokenB | Yes | second token address of the pair (0x-hex) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it scopes to open/pending/active orders, includes both sides of the pair, and specifies largest-first ordering. This is useful supplementary behavior that annotations do not convey.
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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, includes ordering information, and every phrase contributes meaning. There is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.
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 simple two-parameter read-only tool and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by stating what is returned, the sides of the book, and the sort order. It does not detail pagination or exact return structure, but the description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, with tokenA and tokenB already documented as the first and second token addresses. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond referring to 'a token pair.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Open (pending/active) limit orders on both sides of a token pair, largest first.' It clearly identifies this as an orderbook query and distinguishes it from siblings like get_order_status or list_orders by specifying sides, pair, and ordering.
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: an agent would call this when it needs the current open limit orders for a token pair. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_quote, get_route, or list_orders, so the context is only implied rather than stated.
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 are clearly separated by resource (orders, quotes, routes, tokens, docs, examples), but market_stats, get_market_overview, and token_volume overlap on volume/engine-wide stats, and get_quote/get_route are closely related. Descriptions mitigate most misselection.
Most accessors use get_/list_/search_ verbs, but five tools (error_catalog, market_stats, order_preflight, recent_swaps, token_volume) use bare noun phrases instead of a consistent verb-first pattern. All names are snake_case and readable, so the mixed verbs are a moderate inconsistency.
At 15 tools the server is at the top of the ideal range and each area (market data, orders, quotes/routing, docs, examples) is represented. A few overlapping stats/volume tools make it feel slightly heavier than necessary, but the count is not a problem.
The read-only surface is fairly complete: quotes, routes, orderbook, order status/list, market stats, token search, docs, examples, and error catalog. However, there are no tools to create/submit or cancel orders, and no wallet/balance/allowance tools, so agents cannot complete an actual trade from quote to execution. This is a notable gap if the server is meant to support trading, not just research/development.