List live axes (dealer advertised interests) currently on the wire. Filter by category or dealer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| side | No | BID|OFFER|all (default all) | |
| category | No | spot|fx|options|rates|all (default all) | |
| operator_pk | No | filter to one dealer's axes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys it is a read-only list operation on 'live' data, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. Acceptable for a simple list.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and filtering capability with no waste.
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 list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filtering. It does not describe return format but is adequate given the tool's straightforward nature.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the description only reiterates filtering by category or dealer, adding no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 applies.
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 lists 'live axes (dealer advertised interests) on the wire' with filtering options, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like post_axe (create) and montage (likely different view).
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 indicates when to use (list live axes) and how to filter, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. However, for a simple list tool, this 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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the dealing wire (e.g., conv_status vs. deal_status, directory vs. instruments), with no obvious overlap. Descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
Tool names are mostly snake_case and descriptive, but vary between noun phrases (e.g., 'about', 'montage') and verb phrases (e.g., 'post_axe', 'send_call'). The pattern is not fully uniform but remains clear and readable.
With 18 tools, the server covers documentation, status queries, listing, and actions for a complex protocol. The count is well-scoped, avoiding both excess and insufficiency.
The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage: reading schemas, posting axes, sending envelopes, polling rings, and inspecting deals and conversations. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of agent-based dealing on the wire.