Lists A2A bilateral trade deals, filterable by agent EVM address or deal status (PROPOSED, DUAL_SIGNED_CONFIRMED, REJECTED, CANCELLED, EXPIRED).
Lists A2A bilateral trade deals, optionally filtered by agent EVM address or status (PROPOSED, DUAL_SIGNED_CONFIRMED, REJECTED, CANCELLED, EXPIRED).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_address | No | Optional agent EVM address filter | |
| status_filter | No | Optional status filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, auth requirements, or what the response contains; only the filterable status values are surfaced.
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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool with fully described params, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema it says nothing about what is returned or how results are bounded. It covers the input side and omits the output side.
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% (baseline 3), and the description adds real value by enumerating the valid status_filter values (PROPOSED, DUAL_SIGNED_CONFIRMED, REJECTED, CANCELLED, EXPIRED) that the schema leaves as a bare string with no enum.
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 (Lists) and resource (A2A bilateral trade deals) plus the filterable dimensions, which clearly separates it from the get_a2a_trade_deal sibling. It does not explicitly name siblings or scope limits, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The mention of optional filters implies the retrieval context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to get_a2a_trade_deal for single-deal lookups. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.