Measures bid and ask size within 1, 2, and 5 percent of a symbol's reference price to reveal order book liquidity. Works for crypto and equities from a single symbol input.
Bid and ask size within 1, 2 and 5 percent of the reference price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | ||
| 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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not read-only vs mutating, not latency/cost, not that the crypto path scans stored data from zero to now while the equity path snapshots a live ladder, and not what the response shape looks like. That material behavioral context exists only inside the JSON schema's docstring, which is not where an agent selecting a tool would look.
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?
The sentence is short and front-loads the metric, but its brevity is under-specification rather than economy: one clause of content stands in for what should be a purpose statement plus return-shape and market notes.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only prose an agent gets, and it omits return format, the crypto-vs-equity behavioral split, symbol format, and asset_class inference. For a two-parameter analytics tool with a non-trivial dual implementation, this is not enough to call correctly with confidence.
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 only 50% ('symbol' has no description at all), so the description needed to compensate and does not — it never mentions 'symbol' or 'asset_class', nor that there is deliberately no time-range parameter. The single sentence adds no meaning 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?
The description names a specific metric (bid/ask size) and specific depth bands (1, 2, 5 percent of reference price), which tells an agent roughly what is computed. However it never says what the tool returns (a per-band size vector? a snapshot? a sequence-indexed series?) and does not distinguish it from siblings such as 'depth', 'slippage', or 'simulate-price-impact', which plausibly 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 statement of when to use this tool versus 'depth' or any other liquidity sibling, and no preconditions (which markets are supported, whether the equity path snapshots live data). The agent is left to infer routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.