gage_portfolioA wallet's loans (each one's sGAGE to claim, raw, and whether it rolls by itself), Earn holdings and credits (USDG, and each lend asset's apart); where a release names the chain's exit desk, each holding's open exit now and where it stands, and what exit sales paid the wallet. A core or vault that could not be read just now is named in unread, never shown as empty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes | The wallet that will sign |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful partial-failure semantics: unread cores/vaults are named in unread and never shown as empty, which is non-obvious and useful. It could say more about permissions or freshness, but this is solid beyond 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 compact, two sentences, and front-loads loans, but the first sentence is a dense, jargon-heavy list with nested parentheses and unclear terms like 'apart' and 'exit desk.' It is not bloated, but the structure could be easier to scan.
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 complex read-only portfolio aggregator with no output schema, the description covers the major return components and the unread fallback. It does not detail nesting or field-level semantics, but it gives enough conceptual coverage for an agent to know what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the sole wallet parameter is documented as 'The wallet that will sign.' The description refers to 'A wallet's loans' but adds no new constraints, format, or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 names the resource and enumerates what the portfolio includes: loans, Earn holdings and credits, exits, and unread cores/vaults. It does not use a clear action verb or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the portfolio aggregation purpose is discernible.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given; it does not say when to call gage_portfolio versus gage_loan or gage_earn_vaults. The content implies a portfolio overview, but the absence of routing guidance is a significant gap.
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.