Fetch a single perpetual market by base symbol to view its pool, tick and lot sizes, minimum quantity, margin, and leverage before trading.
Get one perp market by base symbol (e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL): pool, tick/lot sizes, min quantity, margin and leverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Base symbol, e.g. BTC |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the kinds of values returned (pool, tick/lot sizes, min quantity, margin, leverage) but does not state read-only behavior, error handling for invalid symbols, or authentication requirements.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, the key parameter, and the useful returned fields compactly.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough detail about what the returned market record contains. Minor gaps around invalid-symbol behavior and exact response shape remain, but the essential information is present.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single symbol parameter is already documented with an example. The description reinforces that it is a base symbol and adds ETH/SOL examples, but does not add format or validation semantics beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: get one perp market by base symbol. The scope 'one' and the listed returned fields distinguish it clearly from list_markets without needing to name the sibling.
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?
The description makes the usage condition clear: look up a single perp market by base symbol. It does not explicitly say when to use list_markets instead or what happens for unknown symbols, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.