PAID $0.01. The biggest at-risk borrow positions across every chain/venue the fleet watches, ranked by size, with health factor and distress score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| minUsd | No | ||
| x402Payment | No | Base64 x402 payment header (EIP-3009 exact-evm) for THIS route+price. Omit to receive the machine-readable payment requirements, then call again with it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The 'PAID $0.01' disclosure surfaces a critical behavior that is not in annotations, and listing health factor and distress score gives a sense of the output. However, it does not state the two-step x402 payment flow, whether the operation is read-only, or what 'at-risk' is defined against; with no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be expected.
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 dense sentence, with the cost flag front-loaded and each clause adding scope, ranking, or output detail. There is no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a paid tool with undocumented numeric parameters and no output schema, this is too thin: an agent still needs to know the semantics of limit and minUsd, the exact payment call flow, and the output shape beyond two named fields. The x402Payment schema covers part of the flow, but the description itself leaves the invocation ambiguous.
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?
The schema only describes x402Payment; limit and minUsd are bare, and schema coverage is 33%. The description's 'ranked by size' hints at filtering by USD size, but it never explains what limit or minUsd do or how they interact, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a concrete resource ('biggest at-risk borrow positions'), scope ('every chain/venue the fleet watches'), ranking, and output fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like farm_distress or farm_baddebt, whose names suggest overlapping concepts.
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 phrasing implies when to use it—when you need the largest at-risk borrow positions across the fleet—but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. In a sibling group with farm_distress, farm_baddebt, and farm_liquidations, an agent has to infer where the boundaries lie.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.