Benchmark cross-venue execution speed, venue latencies, and fill rates for a specific date, time slice, and optional venue. Use it to compare crypto exchange and DEX performance.
Benchmark cross-venue execution speed, venue latencies, and fill rates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| time | No | Time slice in HHMM format (default 0000) | |
| venue | No | Optional venue filter (coinbase | base_dex) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires credentials/API keys to reach venues, whether it is rate-limited or slow, or what a benchmark run returns. 'Benchmark' implies a read, but that is inference, not disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and the three measured quantities come first. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what a benchmark result looks like (per-venue latency figures, fill-rate metrics) and how it is scoped. It names the metrics but leaves the return shape and any execution caveats unstated, which is thin for a tool with no structured support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so date, time, and venue are fully documented in the schema itself, and the description adds no format or semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 applies 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('Benchmark') and three named outputs (cross-venue execution speed, venue latencies, fill rates), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like crypto_dislocations or crypto_impact_simulation. It stops short of stating scope boundaries (e.g. which venues, live vs historical), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool. An agent must infer that this is a read-only analytical benchmark run over a date/time slice, with nothing telling it when this tool beats crypto_impact_simulation or the other crypto tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.