Check whether a market is open, halted, or in auction using its market id — no credentials required. Deprecated; use fetch_market_status instead.
Deprecated: use fetch_market_status. Get a market's trading status and halt info (whether trading is open, halted, or in auction). Public — no credentials needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market_id | Yes | Market id, e.g. "BTC-USDX-PERP". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral fact: "Public — no credentials needed," which resolves the auth question for an agent. It also reveals the categorical result space (open/halted/auction). It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown market_id or rate limiting, so it falls short of fully compensating for the missing annotations.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, and the deprecation warning — the single most decision-relevant fact — is front-loaded before the capability description. Nothing is wasted.
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?
For a one-parameter, public, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the migration target, the auth posture, and the range of statuses returned. No return-value documentation is required since the possible outcomes are enumerated inline.
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% and there is a single parameter with an example value ("BTC-USDX-PERP") already documented in the schema. The description adds no further format, casing, or validation detail, so the 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 and resource ("Get a market's trading status and halt info") and then enumerates the exact return semantics — open, halted, or in auction. This distinguishes it from generic status siblings like get_service_status or fetch_status, which cover service health rather than per-market trading state.
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?
Opens with "Deprecated: use `fetch_market_status`", naming the replacement tool explicitly and unambiguously. The agent is told when not to use this tool and exactly which sibling to select instead, which is the strongest form of routing guidance in a crowded sibling list containing both `get_market_status` and `fetch_market_status`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.