The DEX parameters a $BOBAI trade needs, read from the chain: PancakeSwap V2 router, pair, both swap paths, and the fee-on-transfer settings (3% tax, minimum 15% slippage, the SupportingFeeOnTransferTokens method names). Reports the numbers; a naive swap reverts without them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it reads from the chain, reports fee-on-transfer settings, specifies a 3% tax and minimum 15% slippage, and warns that a naive swap reverts without this data. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, enumerates the key content, and ends with a functional warning that justifies the tool's existence. 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?
With no input schema properties and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent will receive and why it matters. It lists the critical fields, the fee-on-transfer behavior, and the consequence of skipping this tool. This is complete for a zero-parameter read-only info 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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs, which is appropriate for a no-input info tool. Baseline 4 applies here.
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's purpose: to report the DEX parameters needed for a $BOBAI trade, including router, pair, swap paths, and fee-on-transfer settings. It is specific about what is read and reported, and the mention of a naive swap reverting distinguishes it from general price or liquidity tools.
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 clear context that this is the tool to use before executing a $BOBAI trade, since a naive swap without these parameters reverts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose it over siblings like bobai_price or bobai_liquidity.
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.
Several tools operate on overlapping data: bobai_burned, bobai_activity, and bobai_smart_money all report burn-related metrics, while bobai_token_info, bobai_circulating_supply, and bobai_burned overlap on supply numbers. The long descriptions mitigate this, but the purpose boundaries are less crisp than ideal. The BSC pool tools are more easily told apart.
Most token tools use a consistent bobai_* snake_case prefix, but the set mixes conventions: bnb_agent_*, bsc_pool_scan, find_agents_on_bnb_chain, and pancakeswap_fee_tiers break the pattern. The names are still readable and mostly noun-oriented. There is no chaotic mixing of camelCase or vague verbs, but the pattern is not uniform.
19 tools sits in the borderline heavy range for a token research server. Many are focused data views, but some could be consolidated, such as bobai_token_info with circulating supply/burned, or the informational guide/links/tokenomics cluster. Each tool has a defensible role, but the overall surface feels padded.
Core workflows are well covered: price, liquidity, DEX parameters, purchase guidance, burns, wallet balances, and BNB agent discovery. Missing historical price/volume, holder distributions, or detailed per-agent profiles, but these are minor gaps rather than dead ends. The server gives an agent what it needs to understand and interact with $BOBAI.