Skip to main content
Glama

Rubin Exchange

by trade.rubin

Wallet vs trading-account funds

get_funding_status
Read-only

Where the account's USDC sits: in the WALLET (bank balance — money sent to the account lands here and is NOT collateral) vs in the trading SUBACCOUNT (equity / free collateral). Returns depositableUsdc (wallet minus the $0.95 gas reserve), whether gas is low, and a suggestedAction (deposit_to_subaccount / top_up_gas / null). Call this when the user says they sent funds, when collateral reads 0, or before any funding decision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint already present, the description goes beyond the annotation by disclosing the wallet is not collateral, depositableUsdc is wallet minus a $0.95 gas reserve, and suggestedAction can be one of three values. This gives meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-structured: first the central distinction, then the returned fields, then the exact call context. Every sentence contributes useful information; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description needs to cover return semantics, and it does so well by enumerating depositableUsdc, gas low status, and suggestedAction. It also sufficiently explains the wallet vs subaccount distinction, making the tool callable and interpretable without external documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero input parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to supply. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; the description even compensates by explaining the meaning of returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a status readout: where USDC sits (wallet vs trading subaccount) and the three outputs returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_equity or get_balance by framing the wallet/subaccount distinction, so an agent can tell when this tool applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit call triggers: 'when the user says they sent funds, when collateral reads 0, or before any funding decision.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a specific alternative tool, but it does provide actionable context and surfaces the suggested follow-up actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Rubin Exchange toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, but there is overlap among the read-heavy account tools: get_balance/get_funding_status/fund virtually duplicate each other, and get_equity/get_portfolio/get_position_risk/get_open_orders/get_positions all converge on equity and open-position data. The detailed descriptions help an agent choose, but several tools have fuzzy boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow the expected verb_noun convention: get_*, place_*, cancel_*, close_*. Minor deviations such as batch_cancel, get_candles_multi, top_up_gas, and whoami make the pattern not perfectly uniform, but the inconsistency is small.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the surface is beyond what most agents need and includes several redundant query helpers rather than genuinely distinct operations. A broad exchange can justify a large surface, but get_balance/get_funding_status, get_equity/get_portfolio/get_position_risk, and get_candles/get_candles_multi make the set feel top-heavy.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: market discovery, market data, order placement/cancellation, position management, risk, funding transfers, PnL, and account status. Obvious gaps are limited to historical order lookup by order ID, a way to cancel across all markets in one call, and a few optional account-history conveniences.

Resources