Live sample: the current state of one fixed vesting plan read straight from the contract. The paid GET /vesting-status takes any Hedgey plan or Sablier stream.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool performs a live read directly from the contract, implying current data and possible chain interaction, and notes the limitation of being fixed to one plan. However, it does not describe the response format, potential errors, or whether any side effects occur, so transparency is partial.
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, highly concise, and front-loaded with the key concept 'Live sample.' The second sentence contrasts with the paid alternative, adding value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains the source (contract read), the scope (one fixed plan), and the alternative (paid endpoint). The only missing part is the exact structure of the returned state, but for a sample tool this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters. The description says 'one fixed vesting plan,' clarifying that no parameters are needed because the plan is predetermined. This adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why there are zero parameters, justifying the baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.
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 provides a live sample of the current state of one fixed vesting plan read from the contract. This defines a specific resource and action ('read state of a fixed vesting plan'), and it distinguishes itself from the paid GET /vesting-status that accepts any plan or stream. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling sample tools, though the 'vesting' naming helps.
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 implies usage by contrasting with the paid endpoint: use this free sample for one fixed plan, use the paid GET for arbitrary Hedgey plans or Sablier streams. This gives clear context and an explicit alternative, though it does not discuss when to choose among 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.