Ready-to-run viem code for a $BOBAI purchase with BNB on PancakeSwap V2. Reports a live on-chain quote, the 15% slippage floor and the fee-on-transfer method name, so an agent has everything it needs zero-shot. Returns text; this tool holds no key and moves nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states it returns text, holds no key, and moves nothing—eliminating any risk that an agent might expect an executed on-chain transaction. This is especially valuable given the purchase-oriented name and adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 with no redundancy: the first states the core deliverable, the second enumerates outputs and safety. Every word contributes value, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 no-input tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the deliverable (viem code), what will be reported (quote, slippage floor, fee-on-transfer method name), and the response format (text), plus the read-only safety profile. Nothing else is needed to invoke it correctly.
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 an empty schema, so there is no semantic burden on the description. The 'zero-shot' remark reinforces that no additional input or configuration is expected, which aligns perfectly with the schema's coverage.
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 verb and resource: provides ready-to-run viem code for a $BOBAI purchase with BNB on PancakeSwap V2. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bobai_price (price data) or bobai_guide (general guide), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
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 strong usage context: an agent that needs to execute a $BOBAI purchase can use this tool and get 'everything it needs zero-shot.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purchase-specific focus is clear enough for correct selection.
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.