Skip to main content
Glama

Rubin Exchange

by trade.rubin

Place a limit order

place_limit_order

Place a limit order. Default timeInForce=GTT (long-term, durable, broadcast-commit so errors return synchronously). Use SHORT_TERM only for latency-sensitive orders (expire within ~20 blocks, broadcast async). NOTE: stateful (GTT) orders are rate-limited to 2/block and 20 per 100 blocks — pace placements. Returns confirmation with the REAL outcome verified via the indexer (filled / partially_filled / resting / unfilled / pending) — broadcast code: 0 only means the tx was accepted, NOT that it filled. Report from confirmation.outcome; if it is pending, the indexer is lagging — re-check shortly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideYes
sizeYesSize in base units
priceYes
marketYesMarket ticker, e.g. BTC-USD
confirmNoVerify the real outcome via the indexer after broadcast (default true).
clientIdNo
postOnlyNoReject if it would cross (maker-only). Defaults to server config.
reduceOnlyNo
timeInForceNoGTT
goodTilBlockOffsetNoSHORT_TERM blocks ahead (default 10)
goodTilTimeSecondsNoGTT lifetime (default 3600)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Excellently discloses behavioral traits: explains the broadcast-commit vs async nature of GTT and SHORT_TERM, the meaning of broadcast code 0 vs actual fill status, and rate limiting. This goes well beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), adding significant value.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise (3 sentences) and informative, front-loading the purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for behaviors), but it is efficient and easy to read.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key behaviors (timeInForce, confirmation, rate limits) and explains the return format. It is fairly complete but could benefit from brief explanations of less common parameters like postOnly and reduceOnly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 55%, so some parameters lack schema descriptions. The description adds context for timeInForce and confirm, but does not elaborate on other parameters like postOnly, reduceOnly, clientId, etc. It provides moderate added value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'Place a limit order', which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like place_market_order or place_stop_loss, but the purpose is well-understood.

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?

Provides detailed guidance on when to use GTT vs SHORT_TERM timeInForce, mentions rate limiting for stateful orders, and explains how to interpret the confirmation result. However, it does not advise when to choose a limit order over a market order, which is a notable omission given sibling tools.

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