Build a bid/ask price ladder around a reference price for crypto or equity symbols, returning real L1 levels when keyed.
Market-depth ladder around a reference price, real L1 when keyed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bins | No | ||
| top_n | No | ||
| method | No | uniform | |
| symbol | Yes | ||
| as_of_ns | No | ||
| max_age_ns | No | ||
| asset_class | No | Which market answers. Inferred from the symbol's source when omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at 'real L1 when keyed' without explaining data source, freshness, key requirements, or how as_of_ns/max_age_ns affect behavior.
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 no wasted words, but it is too terse and cryptic for a tool with seven parameters and no annotations. It is efficiently short but under-specified.
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?
Given a 7-parameter financial data tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It communicates the broad output concept but omits parameter behavior, return format, and key operational constraints.
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?
With 7 parameters and only 14% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It explains none of bins, top_n, method, as_of_ns, max_age_ns, or asset_class, and 'reference price' does not clearly map to any parameter.
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?
Identifies the output as a 'market-depth ladder around a reference price,' which gives a rough sense of the resource. However, 'real L1 when keyed' is opaque and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like liquidity-depth or query_market_data.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as liquidity-depth. The phrase 'real L1 when keyed' hints at a condition but does not state prerequisites or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.