Query market order book Rate limit: 5 qps.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"symbol": "<symbol>"
},
"name": "cex_stock_query_stock_order_book"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the 5 qps rate limit, which is genuinely useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about order-book depth, aggregation, or return shape.
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?
Two short lines with no filler; the purpose statement is front-loaded and the rate limit follows. Both sentences earn their place, though the purpose line is thin enough that the terseness borders on under-specification.
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 read-only query with no output schema, the annotations and schema cover safety, but the description does not tell the agent what the order book returns (depth, levels, bid/ask structure) or how it differs from sibling order-book endpoints. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the symbol parameter on its own, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or market-scope detail about how the symbol is interpreted.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Query market order book'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. However, it gives no differentiation from the many sibling order-book tools (cex_spot_get_spot_order_book, cex_fx_get_fx_order_book, cex_options_list_options_order_book, cex_dc_list_dc_order_book), leaving the stock-domain scoping to be inferred from the tool name alone.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative among the crowded order-book tool family. The only usage-oriented content is the rate limit, not a selection criterion.
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.