gmx_get_pricesFetch current mark prices for all tradeable assets on GMX v2 (Arbitrum). Read-only, no signing needed, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| tool | No | ||
| funded | No | ||
| payUsd | No | ||
| workId | No | ||
| claimId | No | ||
| claimable | No | ||
| next_call | No | ||
| proofRule | No | ||
| fulfillableBy | No | ||
| definitionOfDone | No | ||
| needs_from_caller | No | ||
| notClaimableReason | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful beyond-annotation context: 'no signing needed, free.' It also specifies the network (Arbitrum) and that it covers 'all tradeable assets,' which helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations.
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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, scope, network, and safety profile. There is no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause adds information an agent needs.
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 zero parameters, a present output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what to expect, the network, the asset scope, and the read-only nature. No critical operational context is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter details. The description clarifies that the tool fetches all tradeable assets with no filtering, which explains why no parameters are required. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.
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: 'Fetch current mark prices for all tradeable assets on GMX v2 (Arbitrum).' This clearly distinguishes it from trading tools like submit_gmx_order and account-oriented tools like crypto_wallets. The scope is precise and immediately actionable.
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 context clear: this is for retrieving current mark prices on GMX v2. It implicitly signals use for read-only price queries before an order, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the tool is simple and zero-parameter, the context is sufficient.
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.
Despite 41 tools, each has a highly specific purpose with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate them. The prepare_/submit_ pairs, domain-specific prefixes (gmx_, regen_), and distinct action types (find, get, verify, etc.) leave little room for confusion. Even closely related tools like funding_quote and prepare_funding or my_work and my_votes are explicitly distinguished.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use plain nouns (account_statement, board_stats), others use verb_noun patterns (prepare_*, submit_*, get_*), possessive (my_votes, my_work), or descriptive phrases (how_to_claim, retire_and_certify). While not chaotic, the lack of a single consistent pattern reduces predictability. However, prefixes like gmx_ and regen_ provide internal consistency within subdomains.
With 41 tools, the count significantly exceeds the recommended range (3-15) and falls into the 'too many' category (25+). Although the server covers a wide range of features (work lifecycle, Regen governance, GMX trading, anchoring, carbon), this number can overwhelm agents and make selection challenging. A more focused tool set would improve coherence.
The tool set covers the core workflows for its stated domains well: work posting/funding/claiming/proofing, Regen governance and token data, GMX position management, anchoring, and carbon estimation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no GMX order cancellation, no work deletion), but overall the surface is comprehensive enough to accomplish primary use cases without dead ends.