get_marketFetch trading rules and 24-hour ticker data for a specified market symbol, such as BTC/USDT, to inform order sizing and market conditions.
Full details of one market: trading rules (tick size, lot size, min/max quantity, min notional, decimals, supported order types and time-in-force) and its 24h ticker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Market symbol as BASE/QUOTE, e.g. BTC/USDT |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-dev.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful fact that the response mixes static trading rules with a dynamic 24h ticker, but says nothing about error behavior when a symbol is unknown or about rate limits.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical field list is dense but each item earns its place by previewing the return payload. Slightly list-heavy for a single-sentence description.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the rule fields plus the ticker. For a single-parameter read-only tool whose annotations cover safety, this is close to complete, missing only failure 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 100%: the single symbol parameter is documented with its BASE/QUOTE format and a validating pattern. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Full details of one market') and enumerates exactly what those details are, which separates it from the plural list_markets. However, it never names or contrasts any sibling, and its inclusion of the 24h ticker overlaps with get_ticker without acknowledging the overlap.
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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The overlap with get_ticker (which also returns ticker data) is left unresolved, so an agent gets no help deciding between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.