Current Monero (XMR) price: centralized spot plus both sides of the Haveno peer-to-peer book.
Returns the best offer and the amount-weighted average on each side, resting depth, offer counts, and round_trip_cost_pct: the cost of buying XMR and selling it straight back, which is far larger than the headline premium.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key returned fields, including best offer, weighted averages, depth, offer counts, and round_trip_cost_pct, and adds a valuable caveat that the round-trip cost is far larger than the headline premium. This gives the agent useful expectations beyond the tool name.
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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear list to enumerate return values. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail without repetition or fluff.
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?
As a zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates what the agent can expect in the response and provides important context about the round-trip cost caveat. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating the quote currency or units, but the overall picture is complete enough for safe invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain any arguments.
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 that the tool returns the current Monero price with metrics from centralized spot and both sides of the Haveno order book. The scope is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like haveno_book and haveno_premium.
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 implies its use for getting aggregate price and depth information, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as haveno_premium or haveno_book. Usage context is inferable but not directly stated.
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.