Skip to main content
Glama

Undertow market liquidity and exit-cost tools

by io.github.beepboop2025

Consensus price when venues disagree

venue_price_reconciliation
Read-onlyIdempotent

What the price IS when venues disagree: the cross-venue consensus mark for BTC and ETH, weighted by resting depth over squared half-spread (NOT a median of last prices), with the BLINDNESS GAP — how far the deepest venue sits from consensus, i.e. how wrong you would be pricing off the venue you would naturally trust — plus depth concentration (CR1/HHI) and the names of any dislocated venues. Use for 'what is BTC/ETH actually worth right now', 'is an exchange dislocated', or before trusting any single venue's price. Experimental until its accrual gates pass; the payload says so. Not investment advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical context: the tool is experimental, the payload says so, and it is not investment advice. It explains the calculation method in detail, which annotations do not cover.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that is information-dense and front-loaded. It could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) for clarity, but it is not overly verbose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully describes what the tool returns: the consensus mark, blindness gap, depth concentration, and dislocated venues. It also explains the weighting and experimental nature. No gaps.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly defines the tool's purpose: computing a cross-venue consensus mark for BTC and ETH using a specific weighting method. It lists outputs and contrasts with sibling tools implicitly by specifying use cases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate each sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit use cases: 'what is BTC/ETH actually worth right now', 'is an exchange dislocated', or 'before trusting any single venue's price'. It also notes experimental status. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but the use cases are clear.

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

All Undertow market liquidity and exit-cost tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of market liquidity: access status, historical depth episodes, current exit costs, liquidity overview, trust record, fund unwind, venue concentration, and price reconciliation. No two tools overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use a consistent lowercase_snake_case noun phrase pattern (e.g., depth_episodes, exit_cost, venue_concentration). This is predictable and coherent, even though the convention is not verb_noun.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a specialized analytics server. Each tool provides a unique function without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the domain thoroughly: current liquidity state (exit_cost, venue_concentration, venue_price_reconciliation, liquidity_tiers), historical events (depth_episodes), risk assessment (unwind_watch), and platform meta (agent_access_status, sealed_record). No obvious gaps for the described purpose.

Resources