Retrieve OTC deal threads, including active negotiations and agreed deals, with current and pending prices to track progress.
Your deal threads (negotiations + agreed deals) with current/pending prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether results are paginated or filtered, or whether authentication is required. Only the data content (current/pending prices) is described, leaving the operational profile largely blank.
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?
A single compact sentence with the core content front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.
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?
For a no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable content overview. However, because there are no annotations and no return-shape documentation, it should say more about what an agent receives (e.g., a list of threads with prices) and whether the operation is safe/read-only.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly does not invent any.
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 names the resource ('deal threads') and its scope ('negotiations + agreed deals ... current/pending prices'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like my_rfqs and list_open_rfqs. It stops short of an explicit verb, but the possessive 'Your deal threads' makes the retrieval intent clear.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as my_rfqs, deal_status, or get_deal_secret. The agent is left to infer from the name alone that this lists the caller's deals rather than, say, a single deal's status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.