Live sample: one fixed, real Aave V3 position -- whether it is exposed to the stETH depeg blind spot and how much of its collateral is wstETH. The depeg level at which it becomes liquidatable is the paid GET /lending-depeg-exposure, which takes any borrower.
| 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 the sample nature and the specific position, but doesn't explicitly state whether it is read-only, if it makes network calls, or what output format to expect.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Live sample', and the second sentence adds valuable context about the paid endpoint. No waste, every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter sample tool, the description covers the purpose, the specific data shown, and the paid alternative. It lacks explicit mention of response structure, but the sample nature is clear and no output schema exists.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description adds context about the fixed position rather than parameter syntax. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter documentation is needed.
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 identifies this as a live sample for a specific Aave V3 position, showing stETH depeg exposure and wstETH collateral. It distinguishes itself from sibling sample tools by naming the specific lending depeg product.
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 implies the sample is for a fixed position and mentions the paid endpoint for any borrower, giving a clear alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use the sample versus the paid tool.
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.