mcp-orbit-kraken
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.2
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are distinct by resource and action, but pairs like kraken_get_recent_trades (public market data) and kraken_get_trades_history (account trades) could be confused. Account balance vs extended balance are also similar, though their descriptions clarify the difference.
Naming Consistency4/5The kraken_* tools consistently use verb_noun snake_case, but the grid_state, grid_plan, and grid_log tools deviate with noun-only names. This creates a minor but noticeable inconsistency in the overall naming pattern.
Tool Count2/5With 32 tools, the server is over the comfortable range and becomes unwieldy for agents to select from. While the coverage is comprehensive, the sheer number makes it harder to navigate and increases cognitive load.
Completeness5/5The server covers market data, trading operations, account balances, funding (deposits/withdrawals), system status, and grid strategy utilities. This provides full lifecycle coverage for crypto exchange workflows with no obvious missing operations.
Average 3.5/5 across 32 of 32 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not mention that setting 'new' to true generates a new address with potential side effects, nor does it clarify read-only status. The 'Get' phrasing is misleading if 'new' is used, as it's more than a simple retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists, the description fails to convey important context such as the dependency on deposit methods, the effect of the 'new' flag, or any operational prerequisites. The tool's generative capability is omitted, making the description incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (asset, method, new) at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond referencing 'selected method', so it meets the baseline without enhancing understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'deposit addresses for an asset', which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_deposit_methods' and 'get_deposit_status'. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'new' parameter behavior or differentiate between retrieving existing vs generating new addresses, so it's not fully distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as first calling 'kraken_get_deposit_methods' to obtain a method ID, or when generating a new address is appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent without guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Execute a buy or sell order,' which implies a trade action but does not warn about financial risk, the irreversible nature of real orders, the availability of a validation mode (validate parameter), or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool that moves funds.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable. Fewer words would hurt clarity; this is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a rich schema and output schema, the description is far too minimal for a complex trading tool. It does not explain the different order types (market, limit, etc.), the validate option, or the risks of executing a live trade. An agent would lack the context needed to safely invoke order placement without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the description need not add more. It adds no extra context beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents all 11 parameters, including enums for ordertype, type, and timeinforce. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('buy or sell order'), placing it in the context of the Kraken exchange. It differentiates from sibling tools like kraken_cancel_order and kraken_edit_order by focusing on order placement, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it falls 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kraken_edit_order or kraken_cancel_order. There is no mention of prerequisites, order type selection, or any exclusions. This lacks even implied usage context for an AI agent deciding between multiple order-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only status check, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'recent.' This is minimal coverage of potential behavioral nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it could be expanded with additional useful context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete: 'recent' is undefined, no pagination or result filtering info is given, and the tool's relationship to nearby withdrawal tools isn't clarified. It leaves the agent guessing about exact semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it also doesn't mislead. The 'specific asset' phrasing aligns with the required asset parameter, but method remains unexplained beyond its schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks withdrawal status for an asset, using a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the similar kraken_get_withdrawal_info, but the 'recent withdrawals' phrasing implies a list-oriented purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kraken_get_withdrawal_info or kraken_get_deposit_status. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions included details (precision, margin availability) but fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens when no asset parameter is provided. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the action, resource, and key output details in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with an output schema available, so the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and does not address edge cases like requesting multiple assets or leaving parameters empty. It would benefit from clarifying default behavior or relationship to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that output includes precision and margin availability, implying why filtering by asset class might be useful, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get detailed information about supported assets' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions key output specifics (precision and margin availability) that help differentiate it from ticker or order book tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'kraken_get_tradable_asset_pairs', though the resource (assets vs. pairs) is inherently different.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent would not know if this is preferable to kraken_get_tradable_asset_pairs for a given task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'retrieve', implying a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, output structure, or any other side effects or constraints. The lack of behavioral detail beyond the obvious read nature is a significant gap for a tool with a potentially large data set.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. There is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a detailed schema and an output schema, so return values are sufficiently covered by structured data. However, the description is minimal and does not address the relationship to similar sibling tools or the historical versus recent trade distinction. It is adequate but leaves gaps in usage context, making it minimally viable rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names a clear resource ('history of trades and executed orders'). It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kraken_get_recent_trades, which also retrieves trade data. Thus it meets the bar for a clear purpose but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kraken_get_recent_trades or kraken_query_orders. It only mentions a generic purpose ('for analysis or reporting'), which does not help an agent decide between similar trade-retrieval tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only says 'Retrieve the most recent public trades', which hints at a read-only public endpoint but fails to disclose pagination behavior via the 'since' cursor, rate limits, or data ordering. The word 'public' implies no authentication but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately brief for a simple market data tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple public data retrieval with only 2 parameters and an output schema, so it doesn't need to explain return values. However, the description is minimal, lacking context on pagination, usage alternatives, and authentication expectations, making it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (pair with example, since as pagination cursor). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Retrieve the most recent public trades for an asset pair' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'kraken_get_recent_spreads' (spreads) and 'kraken_get_trades_history' (private account trades).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use for market data' or 'for private trades use kraken_get_trades_history'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects but only mentions 'initiate a withdrawal'. It does not state that the action is irreversible, may incur fees, requires sufficient funds, or could be subject to delays or cancellations. The output schema exists but is not described in the text.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. No filler, perfectly front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial mutation with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It lacks preconditions, expected outcomes, fee/reversibility details, and differentiation from related withdrawal and transfer operations, making it incomplete for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds the context of 'preconfigured address' but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('initiate a withdrawal of funds') and the destination ('preconfigured address'), which distinguishes it from internal transfers or withdrawal management tools. This is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kraken_wallet_transfer or kraken_get_withdrawal_status. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the withdrawal key must be configured) or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without detailing irreversibility, permission requirements, behavior for already-filled or unknown orders, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary words. Every word contributes to stating the purpose, making it an exemplar of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, the schema fully documents parameters, and an output schema exists. However, the description lacks contextual detail about when to prefer this tool over its siblings, and does not hint at edge cases like cancelling non-existent or already-cancelled orders. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (txid and cl_ord_id) with descriptive text. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (cancel), the target (an active order on Kraken), and the method (using its unique identifier). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kraken_cancel_all_orders by specifying a single order with a unique identifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kraken_cancel_all_orders or kraken_edit_order. The description implies usage for canceling a single order but does not mention exclusions or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List recent bid-ask spreads' and does not mention pagination, time limits, or historical data characteristics. The term 'recent' is vague, and there is no note about rate limits or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it). This is a significant gap for a data-fetching tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 11 words, front-loading the core action ('List recent bid-ask spreads') followed by the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return values, and the description explains the basic purpose. However, the 'since' parameter (pagination cursor) is not mentioned in the description, and there is no context about how 'recent' is defined or how this tool relates to similar sibling tools. For a relatively simple 2-parameter endpoint, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters ('pair' and 'since'). The tool description adds no additional meaning; it only repeats that an asset pair is involved. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists recent bid-ask spreads for an asset pair, which is a specific resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_order_book or get_ticker_info, both of which also involve bid/ask data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'to analyze market depth' gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., order book for depth or recent trades for trades). No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are named, so it only meets the implied usage level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what 'operational status' entails, whether any side effects exist, or what the response structure will be. The output schema exists but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it maximally concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could have added context about what 'operational status' includes, but for a basic status check, the provided information is adequate. The low complexity reduces the burden on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed. The description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'current operational status of the Kraken platform', making the tool's purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kraken_get_server_time by focusing on overall status rather than a specific time or asset. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available, the agent receives no help in deciding when to call this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'List' and offers a vague hint about filtering cached results using altname/wsname fields, but does not explain caching behavior, response format, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated in the first four words. The additional hint about altname/wsname is brief and does not add verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but the filtering hint is ambiguous and could mislead an agent into thinking altname/wsname are input parameters. It also lacks context on pagination, ordering, or the purpose of the 'info' parameter, which the schema does not fully explain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including enum values and formatting examples (e.g., internal names like XBTCHF). The description adds no extra semantic value for the parameters themselves, consistent with the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tradable asset pairs'). It is distinct from sibling tools like kraken_get_asset_info, which lists asset metadata rather than pairs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools that could be used instead for different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, authentication needs, or rate limits, but it states only the operation. The verb 'retrieve' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It provides the core purpose without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits usage context and behavioral disclosures that would be expected given the absence of annotations. It provides no differentiation from similar withdrawal-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the 'asset' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds no new meaning beyond restating that it operates on a specific asset, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific action ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('withdrawal methods') with a scope ('for a specific asset'). It is distinct from sibling tools like kraken_get_deposit_methods, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool, prerequisites, or how it fits into a withdrawal workflow. It does not mention alternatives such as kraken_get_withdrawal_addresses or kraken_withdraw_funds, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context: 'save (upsert)' implies overwrite semantics, 'list (all summaries)' indicates that list returns only summaries, and 'get (load one)' clarifies scope. However, it does not mention return values, error behavior, or persistence guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second enumerates the actions. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple CRUD tool with no output schema, the description covers the core actions but lacks information about return values for save, get, and delete. It mentions summaries for list but not what get returns or whether delete confirms success. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes 'data' and 'gridId' but leaves the 'action' parameter without a description, relying on the enum values. The description adds semantic meaning to each action (upsert, load one, summaries, delete), which helps the agent choose the correct action and infer which parameters are relevant. It partially compensates for the 67% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a CRUD store for grid configurations and lists its four actions (save, get, list, delete). It distinguishes the resource ('grid configurations') from sibling tools like grid_plan and grid_log, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists actions, omitting any context about when each action is appropriate or how this tool relates to sibling tools like grid_plan or grid_log.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and the prerequisite that the withdrawal is pending, but it does not mention that cancellation is likely irreversible, whether it affects funds, or what happens if the withdrawal is no longer pending. This is a significant gap for a destructive mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every word adds value, efficiently conveying the action, target, and required input.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and parameters are well-documented, the description omits important behavioral context for a mutation tool: reversibility, error handling, and constraints around pending status. The tool is destructive with no annotation support, so the description should provide more operational guidance to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (`refid` and `asset`) are documented. The description adds slight context by specifying 'reference ID' which matches `refid`, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. No extra parameter semantics are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('cancel'), the resource ('pending withdrawal'), and the required input ('reference ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like withdrawal status or order cancellation by explicitly targeting withdrawal cancellation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you have a pending withdrawal to cancel) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., already-processed withdrawals). There is no direct sibling competitor, so the purpose alone gives some context, but exclusions and prerequisites are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Modify an existing order' without mentioning side effects (e.g., potential order replacement, cancellation semantics), authentication requirements, or failure conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists, the description lacks essential behavioral context for a trading mutation tool. It does not explain that editing an order may involve cancel-and-replace logic, or warn about possible validation constraints. Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations), the description is too sparse to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all eight parameters. The description's mention of 'price, volume, or other execution parameters' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('existing order'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like kraken_add_order and kraken_cancel_order. The scope is precise: updating price, volume, or other execution parameters on an already-existing order.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an order already exists and needs changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., cancel and re-add) or provide exclusions. The purpose is clear enough that a user could infer the usage scenario, but no direct guidance or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the read-only nature via 'retrieve'. It does not disclose whether authentication is needed, potential errors, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the core functionality. However, it lacks any usage context or exclusions, so it's not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter (asset) with its own description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond rephrasing the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource ('available deposit methods') and scope ('for a specific asset'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like deposit addresses and deposit status by focusing on methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_deposit_addresses or get_deposit_status. The description implies usage but does not specify exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral traits. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, and 'including credit and hold details' clarifies the scope. However, it does not disclose potential errors, whether the asset parameter is required for certain behavior, or any rate limits or permissions needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details. There is no redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and content. However, the existence of kraken_get_account_balance creates ambiguity that the description does not resolve, leaving a minor gap in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a complete description for the single 'asset' parameter (100% coverage), so the description need not add extra semantics. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('extended balance information'), and adds specific detail about the content ('credit and hold details'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool kraken_get_account_balance, though the term 'extended' in the name hints at a broader scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over kraken_get_account_balance or other balance-related tools. The description gives no context for choosing it, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is 'Obtain' which implies read-only, but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the literal action. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool's purpose. It contains no extraneous words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the full schema documentation, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It lacks any caveats about pair format or data limits, but these are not essential for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, including valid interval values and the pagination nature of 'since'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Obtain' and clearly identifies the resource as 'open, high, low, close (OHLC) candlestick data for a specific asset pair.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kraken_get_ticker_info and kraken_get_order_book, which return different market data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for historical data or that kraken_get_ticker_info is for current prices. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or read-only nature. The description is minimal and does not add context beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the action and the data returned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate for basic usage. It correctly states the purpose and the schema covers the parameter. However, it lacks usage context or mention of when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'pair', including an example. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter or its usage, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'ticker information' and explicitly lists the data fields (bid/ask, last trade, volume data). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kraken_get_order_book or kraken_get_ohlc_data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does and does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' status, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any limitations such as how recent the transfers are, whether it returns all transfers or only the latest, or whether authentication or a previously created deposit address is required. The description adds minimal behavior beyond what the name already suggests, so it's underspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Check the status') and includes the key filtering attribute ('for an asset'). There is no redundancy or filler; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required param), has an output schema, and is read-only in nature, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details such as what status values are returned (e.g., pending, complete, failed) and the temporal scope of 'recent'. Given the minimal risk profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description could be more informative about the nature of the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (asset and method), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description mentions 'for an asset' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of recent deposit transfers for an asset'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kraken_get_deposit_methods (which returns deposit method options) and kraken_get_withdrawal_status (which deals with withdrawals). The 'for an asset' scope aligns with the required 'asset' parameter, and 'recent' conveys a temporal filter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool ('when you need to check deposit status'), but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusionary conditions. It doesn't mention that this is for deposits rather than withdrawals (though the word 'deposit' makes it obvious) or any prerequisites, such as having a deposit method configured. The context is clear enough but lacks explicit 'use when' or 'don't use for' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses the read verb 'fetch' but does not mention whether authentication is required, rate limits, or any operational caveats. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. The output schema covers return structure, and the description states the core purpose. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling market data tools, slightly reducing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters: 'pair' includes an example (XBTUSD) and 'count' documents the default and maximum. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fetch the current order book depth for an asset pair' uses a specific verb ('fetch'), a clear resource ('order book depth'), and a scope ('asset pair'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ticker info or OHLC, which focus on different types of market data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when order book depth is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related market data tools (e.g., ticker info, recent trades) or any exclusions. The context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), but provides no additional behavioral context such as whether the fee estimate is real-time or subject to network conditions, or any authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence that states the tool's purpose without extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the schema documents all parameters, the description is adequate for a simple read-only tool. It could mention any prerequisites or where this fits in the withdrawal workflow, but it's largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond the schema, referring loosely to 'requested transfer' without detailing how the parameters relate to the fee/limit calculation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('withdrawal fee and limit information'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like kraken_get_withdrawal_methods and kraken_get_withdrawal_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used before initiating a withdrawal or contrast with other withdrawal-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly conveys a read-only listing operation, which is not destructive. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format specifics, though an output schema exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with complete schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is adequate but not enriched. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools and offers no additional context about behavior or edge cases, making it merely complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both required parameters (asset and method), so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely references them without adding extra semantic detail, aligning with the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'configured withdrawal addresses' scoped by asset and method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kraken_get_withdrawal_methods and kraken_get_withdrawal_info by focusing specifically on addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—when you need to list withdrawal addresses for a given asset/method—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It is minimally viable but lacks clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the action (initiate a transfer) but does not state side effects (e.g., fees, minimum amounts, whether the transfer is immediate or pending, or that it requires API key permissions). The description is fairly generic and does not add behavioral nuance beyond 'initiate a transfer.' However, it does clarify the wallet-to-wallet context, which is useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, coherent sentence that states the action and provides a concrete example. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded with the verb 'Initiate', and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 simple params, all required, with enums limiting from/to), the description covers the essential purpose and an example. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists, so that's not required. It lacks potential caveats like confirmation or fees, but for a simple internal transfer, the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds the example 'spot to futures' which clarifies the relationship between from/to enums (Spot Wallet → Futures Wallet). It doesn't add new parameter-level detail beyond schema, but the schema itself is already descriptive. Since schema covers everything, baseline is 3, and the description's example provides a small extra semantic hint, so a 4 is justified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool initiates a transfer between Kraken wallets, with an example ('spot to futures') that distinguishes it from other Kraken tools like order placement or withdrawals. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., kraken_withdraw_funds) for transfers to external addresses, so it's clear but not fully differentiation-focused.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: moving funds between internal wallets, which is distinct from withdrawal (external transfer). It doesn't explicitly say 'use this when transferring between spot and futures wallets' or exclude alternatives like kraken_withdraw_funds, but the example serves as a usage hint. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided, so it's implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or any side effects. For a simple balance getter, this is adequate but lacks depth—e.g., no note that it returns all assets including zero balances or that it is safe to call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, directly front-loaded with the action ('Get') and the core resource. It contains no filler, redundancy, or excessive detail. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter read-only tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is almost complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (account balance for all assets) and needs no return format explanation. The only minor gap is the lack of distinction from kraken_get_extended_balance, but the overall completeness is high for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. There is nothing extra needed for parameters, and the description's scope statement ('all assets') is a useful semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the current account balance for all assets on Kraken exchange.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('account balance'), and scope ('all assets'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kraken_get_extended_balance. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kraken_get_extended_balance or other balance-related tools. There is no mention of when this tool is preferred or excluded. The context 'current account balance' implies basic usage, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior (automatic cancellation after a time window) but does not mention whether the scheduled cancellation can be modified, whether it is a one-time action, or any safety implications. This is a destructive operation, so more context would be valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has low complexity (one required parameter) and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description adequately explains the tool's purpose, though it could be slightly more complete by specifying whether the cancellation is a one-time event or if the timeout applies globally to all open orders.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single 'timeout' parameter, including its type, minimum, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('schedule') and resource ('all open orders') with a clear time-window scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'kraken_cancel_all_orders' by indicating a delayed cancellation rather than an immediate one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies usage for delayed cancellation, and the sibling tool name 'kraken_cancel_all_orders' provides a contrast. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Fetch' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive action, which is a useful behavioral hint. However, it does not disclose any further details such as whether the endpoint is public, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and target. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it optimally concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, a clear action, and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. While it lacks explicit usage alternatives, the tool's simplicity and uniqueness among siblings make the description adequate without further context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. According to the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to explain parameters, and none are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the current time according to the Kraken server'. This directly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like kraken_get_ticker_info or kraken_add_order, which serve entirely different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when an agent needs the current Kraken server time, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. It is not misleading, but it offers no deeper usage context beyond the obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It safely implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Retrieve', but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, response size, or any side effects. It covers the basics but leaves out potentially important context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-formed sentence that delivers the core purpose without unnecessary verbosity. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple query tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description is adequate. It explains the purpose and the key informational element (execution status). No major gaps that would hinder an agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (txid and trades). The description adds no further parameter-level meaning; it only restates the resource. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('specific orders') with an added detail on the type of information ('execution status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add/cancel/edit orders by establishing it as a query operation for individual orders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly implies the use case for fetching details of specific orders (as opposed to general history or modifications). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the wording is clear enough for an agent to choose this over mutation tools when order status is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares 'No side-effects, no DB writes' and specifies the return shape, which is transparent about its behavioral contract. It does not cover input validation or error behavior, but the purity claim is strong and directly addresses the main risk of unintended consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, both high-context. The first sentence front-loads the core identity ('Pure price-level calculation for a grid') and the second covers behavioral constraints and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough to understand the tool's role and output. It lacks details on how gridType (LONG/NEUTRAL/SHORT) or distribution (arithmetic/geometric) affect the calculation, which could be important for correct invocation, but the core applicability is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'grid' and output fields but does not explain critical parameters like totalInvestment, levels, gridType, or distribution. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal information, leaving several parameters under-defined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Pure price-level calculation for a grid.' It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'No side-effects, no DB writes,' which separates it from grid_state and Kraken order tools. The output is defined (price, side, volume), making the tool's unique function unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies when to use the tool: it is a safe, side-effect-free calculation, ideal for planning before order placement, in contrast to stateful or order-executing siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when *not* to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the append-only nature (entries cannot be modified or deleted) and that read returns entries in chronological order. It does not mention potential errors or permission requirements, but for a simple log tool these are minor gaps. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first gives a concise overview ('Append-only audit log'), the second breaks down the two actions with precise verbs. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure front-loads the key concept and presents the actions clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid overall picture of the tool's purpose and operations. It covers the append and read behaviors well, but does not specify what append returns or the exact format of log entries in the response. Since there is no output schema, these details would be helpful but are not fatal gaps for a log tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does clarify that 'event + optional data' for append and that read retrieves for a grid (tying to gridId), and action is self-explanatory via the two subcommands. However, it does not fully explain the structure of data or gridId beyond the schema's basic type information, leaving some semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is an 'Append-only audit log for grid events' and defines the two specific actions: 'append: Write a new log entry (event + optional data)' and 'read: Retrieve all log entries for a grid in chronological order.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like grid_state and grid_plan by focusing on logging, not state or planning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that the tool is used for writing and reading grid audit logs, with explicit subcategories for append and read. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the append-only nature and chronological read imply the intended use cases. This is clear context without formal when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves a token, implying a read-only operation, and mentions the purpose of enabling real-time data streams. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as token expiration, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds some context but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Retrieve a token') and adds relevant purpose. There is no redundant information or excessive detail, making it highly concise and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and a simple retrieval action, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose and the context of use. Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It could perhaps mention prerequisites like authentication, but given the low complexity, the current description is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add further parameter semantics. It correctly implies that no inputs are required, matching the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a token for accessing the Websockets API'). It also explains the purpose ('to enable real-time data streams'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch data or manage orders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when real-time data streams are needed via the Websockets API. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or compare with alternative tools, though the context is sufficient for an agent to infer its purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the core behavior (canceling all open orders) but does not mention any side effects, permissions required, or irreversibility. The action is simple and self-explanatory, but lacks deeper context that would make it more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('cancel all open orders') with no redundant words. It is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, simple action, the description fully explains what the tool does. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. Sibling differentiation is clear. No additional context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. There is no parameter semantics gap, and the schema already provides full coverage (100%). Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'cancel' and a clear resource 'all open orders in the trading account', which precisely states the tool's function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like kraken_cancel_order (singular) and kraken_cancel_all_orders_after (delayed variant).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear use case: when the user wants to cancel every open order. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is straightforward given the tool name and sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/okahari/mcp-orbit-kraken'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server