get_market_bboRetrieves current best bid/offer and market statistics by slug in a lightweight format, helping users check live pricing and market status quickly.
Retrieve current market data (best bid/offer, stats) for a specific market by its slug in a lightweight format
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Market slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that data is "current" (a snapshot, not historical) and lightweight, but says nothing about data freshness, staleness, or failure behavior for an unknown slug. Adds modest value beyond the structured hints.
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 resource and scoping key appear early. It is dense but every phrase (best bid/offer, stats, lightweight) carries information.
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; it names the fields at a high level (best bid/offer, stats) but not their shape, units, or whether values can be null when no quotes exist. Adequate but leaves gaps for a data-retrieval tool.
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% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already carries the burden. The description only restates that the slug identifies "a specific market", adding no format, casing, or lookup guidance 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 ("retrieve") and resource ("current market data (best bid/offer, stats)") scoped by market slug. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the full-book sibling by emphasizing a "lightweight format", but it never names get_market_book or get_market_by_slug, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
"Lightweight format" hints at when to prefer this over a heavier book query, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative. An agent must deduce that this is the cheap snapshot versus get_market_book.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.