Search the Epsilon developer documentation (API, auth, order signing, webhooks, rev-share, SDKs, MCP). Returns the most relevant doc sections. No API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max sections to return (default 5, cap 10) | |
| query | Yes | what to look for in the Epsilon developer docs, e.g. 'sign an order', 'rate limits', 'webhooks signature' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnly/destructive, and the description adds the useful auth fact 'No API key required' plus the documentation scope. It does not cover rate limits or result format details, but for a non-destructive search tool the annotations lower the burden.
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?
One sentence states the action, resource, scope, result, and auth requirement with no filler. It is front-loaded and every clause is informative.
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?
For a two-parameter, read-only search tool this is complete enough: an agent knows what to search, what it will get back, and that no auth is needed. A return-format example or result schema would push it to 5, but none is required by the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%: the query parameter has an example and the limit parameter documents default/cap. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Epsilon developer documentation' and lists the covered topic areas. It also states the return behavior ('Returns the most relevant doc sections'), which clearly separates it from the data/order sibling tools.
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 makes the tool's context clear: it is for looking up Epsilon API/auth/signing/webhook documentation rather than for market data or order operations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of 5.
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.