Advertise an indicative interest on the public board. Any dealer can see + dial you. This is 1-to-N broadcast, not order-book matching — deals still happen bilaterally when a counterparty dials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| envelope | Yes | signed envelope { pk, sig, body } where body contains v='axe1', operator_pk, side ('BID' or 'OFFER'), instrument, qty_band, indic_price, ts |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that the operation is a 1-to-N broadcast (not matching) and that deals happen bilaterally. It does not mention state changes, but the nature is implied. Sufficient for understanding behavior.
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 sentences, front-loaded, no extraneous information. Efficiently conveys purpose and key behavioral notes.
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?
Given no output schema and moderate complexity, description adequately covers the tool's role among siblings. It explains the broadcast nature and mechanics, though it omits potential error handling or prerequisites. Still complete enough for typical use.
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% with detailed envelope structure. Description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool advertises an indicative interest on the public board, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from order-book matching and implies it is not for firm orders, setting it apart from sibling tools like list_board.
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 explains when to use the tool (to broadcast indicative interest) and contrasts it with order-book matching, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to siblings like send_env. The guidance is clear enough for an agent.
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.