Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cyan Eclipse Book MCP

Cyan Eclipse Book MCP

Official
by CYAN-ECLIPSE-TECHNOLOGIES-LLC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

venue_status

Check a venue adapter's health, data-only capability record, instrument count, fee-schedule freshness, and ledger chain state before relying on its market data.

Instructions

T0. Adapter health for a venue: capability record (M0 = DATA ONLY), instrument count, fee-schedule freshness, ledger chain state.

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>"
    },
    "name": "venue_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNo
venueYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not state whether the call is read-only, what permissions or rate limits apply, or how failures are reported. The phrase 'M0 = DATA ONLY' hints at behavior but is not defined.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The definition is short and front-loads the main purpose, but the single dense sentence relies on undefined shorthand like 'T0' and 'M0 = DATA ONLY'. It is concise, but not consistently clear or structured for an agent to parse.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It lists several returned health facets but does not explain parameter usage, safety profile, or how the health signals should be interpreted.

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%, so the description should explain both parameters. It implies that 'venue' identifies the target venue but does not define accepted identifier formats, and it entirely omits the optional 'as_of' parameter and its semantics.

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 identifies a specific resource and operation: venue-level adapter health/status. It also lists the reported facets (capability record, instrument count, fee-schedule freshness, ledger chain state), though the labels 'T0' and 'M0 = DATA ONLY' are unexplained jargon.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as fee_schedule_get, instrument_get, or resolution_report. The description implies a health/status check but gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools