Live sample: DAO governance proposals closest to their deadline, with a count of disagreements between the off-chain Snapshot signal and a direct read of the onchain Governor contract. Fixed set of tracked DAOs, no arguments. The count is free; which DAO disagrees and how is the paid GET /dao-proposals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 that the tool is a 'live sample' with a fixed DAO set, requires no arguments, and returns a count of disagreements. It also notes what is not included (which DAO disagrees and how) referring to the paid endpoint, giving a clear behavioral scope.
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?
Three sentences, each providing distinct value: identifying it as a live sample, describing the data and scope, and clarifying the free vs paid distinction. No redundant content, though slightly denser than the minimal two-sentence example.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (count of disagreements), its scope (fixed DAOs), and how to obtain deeper details (paid endpoint). It leaves out interpretation of the count but is otherwise complete for a zero-parameter sample 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?
The schema has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces 'no arguments', aligning with the empty input schema, though it doesn't add further parameter-level detail since none exist.
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 is a live sample that shows DAO governance proposals closest to their deadline with a count of disagreements between off-chain and on-chain data. It uses specific verbs and resources, and its focus on DAO governance distinguishes it from sibling samples like 'oracle_staleness_sample' or 'lending_depeg_sample'.
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?
It gives context on when to use the tool: it's a free sample with a fixed set of tracked DAOs and no arguments. It also references the paid GET /dao-proposals endpoint as an alternative for more detailed mapping, providing a clear usage boundary, though it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling sample tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct financial check (DAO governance, lending depeg, oracle staleness, Safe authority, vesting status), and the catalog serves as the index. No two tools overlap in purpose or output.
Five tools follow a clear 'noun_sample' pattern, but the catalog breaks the pattern with a prefixed name 'apix402_catalog', creating a minor inconsistency. Still, all names are snake_case and readable, so the deviation is small.
With only 6 tools, the set is compact and each tool represents a specific sample category plus a catalog entry point. This is an appropriate size for a preview-oriented MCP server.
The catalog lists all available checks, and the five samples cover key verticals (governance, lending, oracles, safe custody, vesting). The only gap is that paid endpoints are not exposed as MCP tools, but that is by design since payment occurs over HTTP.