SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

CoW Protocol latest batch auction result: auction id

crypto_cowswap_batch_auctions

Read-only

CoW Protocol (Ethereum) latest batch auction result: auction id and block window, number of solver solutions, the winning solution (solver, score, ranking, settlement tx), and the top five solutions by ranking. Order details and clearing prices are not returned in this summary. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_cowswap_batch_auctions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`winner`	No
`fastPath`	No
`auctionId`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`topSolutions`	No
`solutionCount`	No
`auctionStartBlock`	No
`auctionDeadlineBlock`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses negative scope (order details and clearing prices are NOT returned) and a commercial behavior an agent must know: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, with failed calls uncharged. That cost/charging model is genuinely non-obvious and not in annotations. It stops short of stating freshness/latency or whether an auction always exists (empty-result behavior).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded paragraph: returned fields first, exclusions second, pricing last — a sensible order with no filler. The field enumeration is list-like and dense, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only snapshot with an output schema, the definition covers scope, exclusions, and cost — everything needed to call it correctly. Slight redundancy in re-listing return fields already in the output schema, and no statement about what happens when no auction is available, keep it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming it always returns the latest auction. No misleading parameter language is present.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope: the latest CoW Protocol (Ethereum) batch auction result, enumerating the exact payload (auction id, block window, solver solution count, winning solution, top five by ranking). No sibling tool covers CoW auctions, and 'latest' signals the no-parameter snapshot nature, so an agent can tell immediately what it gets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is for inspecting the most recent solver competition / winning solver outcome. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. a per-auction or order-level tool). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?