Proof the buyback-and-burn flywheel is actually running: last burn (with BscScan tx), burns over the last 7/30 days, total bot runs — from the public audit log, every entry verifiable on-chain. Use it to verify that burns really happen and how often; for the next buyback and whale flows use bobai_smart_money, for the burned total bobai_burned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the data provenance (public audit log, every entry verifiable on-chain) and the shape of what is returned. It stops short of describing pagination or freshness/refresh cadence, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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?
Front-loaded with the returned payload, then the usage/routing sentence. Slightly inflated by framing language ('flywheel is actually running', 'Proof the...'), which costs a little efficiency but does not obscure the actionable content.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (last burn + tx, 7/30-day burn counts, total bot runs) along with provenance. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this read-only 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description correctly spends no space on parameter semantics and there is nothing in the schema to compensate for. Baseline 4 for a no-param 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?
States a specific resource (activity / audit log) and enumerates exactly what it returns: last burn with BscScan tx, burns over 7/30 days, and total bot runs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings bobai_smart_money and bobai_burned, so an agent can select it without opening other schemas.
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?
Gives an explicit when-to-use ('verify that burns really happen and how often') and routes two adjacent intents to named alternatives: bobai_smart_money for next buyback/whale flows and bobai_burned for the burned total. Nothing is left to inference.
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.