emblemResolveAssetResolve an asset name to its curated collection. CRITICAL: Call this BEFORE emblemCreateVault when vaulting user assets to find the correct collection name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assetName | Yes | The asset name from user wallet (e.g., "TESTNETPEPE", "PEPECASH", "FDCARD") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the mandatory sequencing with emblemCreateVault, which is essential for correct usage. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides a critical usage directive. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word earns its place without unnecessary fluff.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description fully explains what it does and when to use it. It does not describe return values (no output schema), but the critical ordering note with emblemCreateVault adds essential context. Sibling tools that might be alternatives are not explicitly contrasted, but the description is adequate for this low-complexity tool.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters and includes a clear description with examples for 'assetName'. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, 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.
Does 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 ('Resolve') and resource ('asset name to its curated collection'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like emblemListCollections by focusing on resolving a single asset name to its collection, and it references a concrete use case with emblemCreateVault.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly indicates when to use the tool: 'BEFORE emblemCreateVault when vaulting user assets' and explains the purpose ('to find the correct collection name'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the CRITICAL call-before instruction provides strong usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.