Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Undertow MCP

Undertow MCP

by beepboop2025
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Exit cost at your size, per venue

exit_cost
Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate BTC sell costs by USD position size using nearest-rung, interpolated bid-depth bands; fees excluded, not executable. Use crypto_exit_check to compare sizes or freshness.

Instructions

BTC nearest-rung sell estimates, interpolated bid-depth bands; fees excluded, not executable. crypto_exit_check compares sizes/freshness.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
size_usdNoposition size in USD (published rungs run $1,000 to $1,000,000; nearest rung is used)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / size_usd / exclusiveMinimum
      Added value: +0
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds behavior beyond them: fees are excluded, the result is not executable (an estimate only), and values are interpolated from published rungs. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs before treating the number as actionable.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two dense clauses, zero filler, with the operative constraint (fees excluded, not executable) placed before the sibling pointer. Front-loaded and efficient despite the compressed style.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter estimator with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (an exit-cost estimate), its units context (USD size in), and its limitations. It stops short of describing the returned field's shape or units, which is the only remaining gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the $1,000-$1,000,000 rung range and nearest-rung snapping. The description's 'nearest-rung' and 'interpolated' wording reinforces but does not extend the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: BTC sell-side exit cost estimates using interpolated bid-depth bands. It names the sibling crypto_exit_check, which sharpens the boundary, though the telegraphic phrasing ('BTC nearest-rung sell estimates') takes a moment to parse.

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?

It points at crypto_exit_check as the alternative 'compares sizes/freshness,' implying this tool is for a single-size estimate, but never states the selection condition explicitly or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than given.

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