Submit market price observations to your faction's trade ledger (Manually report market prices you observed at other stations. Trust-based — your faction sees who reported what and when. Max 20 stations per submission. Requires a faction_trade_intel facility.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stations | Yes | Array of station market reports (max 20 stations per submission) | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false (indicating a write operation), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the trust-based nature, that the faction sees who reported what and when, a 20-station limit, and facility requirement. This gives the agent a strong understanding of side effects and constraints.
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, about 35 words, and front-loads the core purpose in the main clause. The parenthetical adds necessary qualifications but packs multiple clauses together, slightly reducing readability. No redundant sentences.
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?
The description explains the action, prerequisite, and limits, but does not specify the expected structure within the stations array. Since there is no output schema and no nested parameter schema, an agent may not know how to format each station report. Still, for a submission tool, the core use case is clear.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the stations parameter is for market price observations observed at other stations, and reinforces the 20-station cap. It does not detail the internal fields of each station object, but the added context elevates beyond the minimal schema descriptions.
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 ('Submit') with a clear resource ('market price observations to your faction's trade ledger') and distinguishes this from sibling tools like faction_query_trade_intel by emphasizing the manual reporting of observed prices. It directly states what the tool does without ambiguity.
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 context: manually report market prices observed at other stations, with the prerequisite of a faction_trade_intel facility. It implies when to use (when you have observations to contribute) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though sibling tools are named.
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 distinct, targeting specific actions and resources. A few overlaps exist (e.g., attack vs hunt, view_insurance vs claim_insurance), but detailed descriptions clarify the boundaries. The scale makes selection harder, but each tool has a clear purpose.
The majority use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_buy_order, get_cargo, accept_mission). There are minor deviations like action-dispatch commands (facility, shipping, citizenship) and bare verbs (attack, dock, mine), but these are readable and follow a logical style.
With 212 tools, the server far exceeds any reasonable scope for an MCP. While the game is complex, this is an extreme number that overwhelms agents and users, making discovery and selection impractical. The calibration considers 25+ already too many, and 212 is extreme.
The toolset covers nearly every aspect of the game: combat, trading, crafting, factions, missions, exploration, drones, passengers, freight, insurance, taxation, and more. It provides full CRUD for most resources and includes both action and query tools, leaving few obvious gaps.
