Cyan Eclipse Book MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

instrument_ingest

Register or refresh a canonical instrument from an adapter-normalized spec with hash-pinned, verbatim resolution criteria and a named source; unmapped venue statuses remain UNMAPPED.

Instructions

T1 (core-local). Register or refresh a canonical Instrument from an adapter-normalized spec. Event contracts REQUIRE verbatim resolution criteria + a named resolution source; criteria are hash-pinned and a later change is a CRITERIA_CHANGED event (spec 5.4). Unmapped venue statuses surface as UNMAPPED, never coerced (5.2).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "venue": "<venue>",
      "native_id": "<native_id>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "instrument_ingest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`tick`	No
`title`	Yes
`venue`	Yes
`currency`	No
`min_size`	No
`outcomes`	No
`native_id`	Yes
`provenance`	No
`underlying`	No
`money_class`	No
`native_status`	No
`native_symbol`	No
`status_mapped`	No
`trading_window`	No
`resolution_source`	No
`resolution_criteria`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and adds substantial policy detail: resolution criteria must be verbatim and named, criteria are hash-pinned, changes emit CRITERIA_CHANGED, and unmapped statuses are preserved as UNMAPPED. It still omits idempotency, validation failure behavior, and return/result semantics.

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 compact and front-loads the primary action, then adds key contract constraints. Some shorthand such as 'T1 (core-local)' and spec references ('5.4', '5.2') may be opaque without external context, but the prose is otherwise efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 17-parameter mutation/ingestion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It gives important behavioral constraints but leaves most parameter meanings and return/error behavior undocumented.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 17 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains resolution_criteria, resolution_source, and status mapping behavior, but leaves most parameters—venue, native_id, kind, title, tick, currency, min_size, outcomes, provenance, underlying, money_class, native_symbol, trading_window—without semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Register or refresh') and resource ('canonical Instrument') and scopes it to an adapter-normalized spec. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the write/register framing clearly separates it from instrument_get and instrument_search.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: this is the ingestion path for registering or refreshing instruments from adapter-normalized specs. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus instrument_get, instrument_search, or other related tools, nor does it state exclusions.

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

Deploy Server