Returns a summary of the limit swaps queue including total count, total USD value, breakdown by asset pair, oldest swap age, and average age. Useful for getting an overview of pending limit orders without retrieving all individual swaps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_asset | No | Filter by source asset (e.g. BTC.BTC) | |
| target_asset | No | Filter by target asset (e.g. ETH.ETH) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), the description provides critical behavioral information about the data structure returned. It enumerates the specific aggregate metrics provided (e.g., 'breakdown by asset pair,' 'average age'), which is valuable context beyond simple read/write status.
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 highly efficient. The first sentence is packed with specific output details, and the second sentence provides a concise, functional use case, ensuring zero wasted language.
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 that the output schema is missing, the description successfully compensates by exhaustively listing every piece of information the agent should expect in the summary (count, USD value, ages, breakdown). This makes the tool definition fully actionable.
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?
Since the schema description coverage is 100%, the parameters are well-documented structurally. The description reinforces the filtering logic by mentioning 'breakdown by asset pair,' which aligns with the `source_asset` and `target_asset` filters.
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 specifies the resource ('limit swaps queue') and the specific output provided ('a summary... including total count, total USD value, breakdown by asset pair, oldest swap age, and average age'). It also clearly distinguishes itself from retrieving individual swaps.
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 explicit context on *when* to use the tool: 'Useful for getting an overview of pending limit orders without retrieving all individual swaps.' This directly advises the agent on its scope versus other potential queue/swap tools.
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.