Executed Haveno trades grouped by payment method, with the premium over spot.
window in 30d,90d,180d,1y,all. currency in USD,EUR. The premium tracks how reversible and convenient the payment rail is, not privacy: every one of these trades is equally non-KYC. The reversible flag is our own classification, not a Haveno field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window | No | 180d | |
| currency | No | USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and adds valuable non-obvious context: the premium tracks reversibility and convenience, not privacy; all trades are equally non-KYC; and the reversible flag is a custom classification, not a Haveno field. This helps prevent misinterpretation, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or output format.
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 description is three sentences with no waste: the first states the core purpose, the second gives parameter constraints, and the third provides an essential caveat about interpretation. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the main purpose, parameter values, and an important interpretation caveat. A minor gap is that it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like haveno_premium or describe the expected output shape.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does by listing explicit valid values: window in 30d,90d,180d,1y,all and currency in USD,EUR. It does not explain the meaning of window or currency beyond their names, but the allowed values are the most critical missing information.
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 clearly states the tool returns executed Haveno trades grouped by payment method with the premium over spot, which identifies the resource, grouping, and metric. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like haveno_premium, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 provides clear interpretive context about what the premium means and lists accepted window and currency values, which implies when the tool might be useful. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus related siblings such as haveno_premium or haveno_book, nor does it provide exclusions.
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 grouped by prefix (network_, pool_, haveno_, reorg), but there is overlap: get_block vs search_block both return block details, price vs haveno_book both expose the current Haveno order book, and chain_fork_window, recent_orphans, and reorgs all touch chain-fork/orphan phenomena. The descriptions help separate them, but an agent could easily pick the wrong one.
The dominant convention is a domain_noun pattern (network_hashrate, pool_distribution, haveno_premium, chain_provenance), which is predictable and readable. Minor deviations like get_block, search_block, price, and reorgs break the pattern slightly, but not enough to cause confusion.
18 tools is on the heavier side but reasonable for a metrics/analytics server covering network health, mining pools, reorgs, blocks, and Haveno market data. A few endpoints could potentially be consolidated, but each tool generally earns its place.
The surface covers current network state, historical time series, block lookup, orphan/reorg analysis, pool attribution, and Haveno market data, which is solid for a Monero metrics server. Minor gaps like transaction-level lookup or a direct chain-range endpoint are absent, but agents can work around them using the provided block and fork-window tools.