Retrieve the price and pool depth for one named APEX commodity, such as Tomato, Truffle, or Voidbloom, to gauge available liquidity.
Price of one commodity in APEX, with pool depth. Pass the commodity name, e.g. "Tomato", "Truffle", "Voidbloom".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commodity | Yes |
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 key return content (price, pool depth) and the single-commodity constraint, but it does not mention failure behavior for unknown commodities, value freshness, or quoting details. Adequate for a low-risk read-only lookup but not rich.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The return semantics are front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is immediately actionable. Every phrase earns its place.
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 single-required-parameter lookup with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (price + pool depth) and how to call it correctly with examples. It is largely complete, only lacking output format details or edge-case behavior.
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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It explains that 'commodity' is a commodity name and supplies three exemplar values ('Tomato,' 'Truffle,' 'Voidbloom'), which meaningfully adds to the bare 'string' type in the schema, though it does not enumerate the full set of valid commodities.
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 states it returns the price of a single commodity plus pool depth, scoped to APEX, which is specific and understandable. It differentiates from siblings (e.g., commodity_markets) via the qualifier 'one commodity,' though the verb is implicit rather than explicit.
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 gives direct invocation guidance: 'Pass the commodity name' with three concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like commodity_markets or state when this single-commodity lookup should be preferred over alternatives; usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.