PancakeSwap V3 range check for any position, free; re-centre plan paid, or free holding 1M $BOBAI.
Scored across 2 tools
The names suggest a clear free-read vs paid-plan split, but the plan tool explicitly repeats all of the look tool's outputs (range, room to edges, holdings, fees, gas break-even), so an agent wanting only state could reasonably pick either. The payment and holder-pass details in the plan description add noise rather than sharpen the boundary.
Both tools use the same predictable snake_case pattern: shared 'lp_position_' prefix followed by a distinct action verb ('look', 'plan'). No mixing of conventions.
Two tools is thin for a server framed as a DeFi agent managing LP positions; the surface is narrowly scoped to one protocol and one position workflow. It is not grossly excessive, but it sits at the borderline of being too few.
The tools only read and plan; there is no execute/rebalance tool, no collect-fees action, no position listing or discovery across wallets, and no other protocol coverage. The plan tool ends in payment terms rather than a usable lifecycle, leaving significant dead ends for an agent expected to act on LP positions.
Rebalancing, the free half: look at a PancakeSwap V3 liquidity position on BNB Chain, read from the chain now — in range or not and how much room is left to each edge, what it holds and is worth in BNB, the fees it is owed and whether collecting them pays for the gas. Give a position id or a wallet that holds one; with neither, it reads the position this agent runs itself (wallet 0xbFAA69233741924eD5b9d5DAA9B4Bf7B84567F0A). Reads only, signs nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | No | The same as address (the word other checkers use) | |
| address | No | Or a wallet address that holds the position | |
| position | No | A PancakeSwap V3 position id (the NFT token id), digits only |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: data is read live 'from the chain now', it performs a gas-vs-fees comparison, and — most importantly — with no arguments it defaults to the agent's own wallet, whose full address is disclosed. 'Reads only, signs nothing' restates readOnlyHint but does no harm. Missing only edge behavior such as what happens for an unknown position id.
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 and dense: the scope, then the returned facts, then input options, then a safety close. A few flourishes ('the free half', 'whether collecting them pays for the gas') cost length but carry information. Nothing is genuinely wasted, though the single run-on sentence across em dashes is harder to scan than it needs to be.
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 takes on the return-value burden and does it well: it enumerates range status, edge headroom, holdings, BNB valuation, owed fees and gas viability. Safety and default-input behavior are covered. The only gap is failure modes — what an empty or unresolved position returns.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3: the parameter descriptions already define position, wallet and address, including the wallet/address aliasing, and the description repeats the id-or-wallet choice rather than extending it. It does add the valuable default case (no id and no wallet means the agent's own position at a stated address), which is the one piece of meaning not in the schema.
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?
Specific verb and resource: 'look at a PancakeSwap V3 liquidity position on BNB Chain, read from the chain now', followed by exactly what is reported (range status, room to each edge, holdings, BNB value, fees owed, gas breakeven). The opening phrase 'Rebalancing, the free half' implicitly frames it against the sibling lp_position_plan, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage context is present but only implied — 'the free half' of rebalancing suggests a read-only inspection step ahead of a plan, yet there is no explicit 'use this when X, use lp_position_plan when Y'. The input-selection guidance ('give a position id or a wallet that holds one') is useful but is really parameter behavior rather than when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The DeFi agent, on your position, the paid half (0.10 USD1, or half that in $BOBAI, or nothing for a wallet holding 1,000,000 $BOBAI (holder pass over x402: a signature, no transaction — terms in the reply)): What the agent that runs this project's own PancakeSwap V3 position would decide about yours, from the same code: whether it is in range and how much room is left to each edge, what it holds and is worth in BNB, what it is owed in fees and whether collecting pays for its own gas, whether a re-set is due and in which width — the width that ended the most ahead against simply holding over the last week when every width was replayed over the recorded prices (its fees, less the gas of its re-sets, plus where it stood against a wallet that held), the width in use kept unless another leads it by a tenth — and what the wallet's spare BNB would add. It reads and plans; it signs nothing on your position. Calling this tool returns the terms; the answer is sold over x402 at https://agent.brainonbnb.com/answer?service=lp_position_plan (or hired through the ERC-8183 escrow for 0.10 $U).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | What you want, with the address in it |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the call is paid (0.10 USD1, half in $BOBAI, or free with 1,000,000 $BOBAI held), payment is over x402 via signature with no transaction, and an ERC-8183 escrow alternative exists. It also states explicitly that it signs nothing on the user's position, which is meaningful safety detail beyond the annotations. The only gap is that it never clarifies what happens on unpaid or failed payment.
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 enormous run-on sentences with three levels of nested parentheses, and payment/legal terms are front-loaded before the tool's actual function. The substantive content is relevant but the structure forces the reader to untangle pricing, x402 mechanics, and analytical scope in a single pass. Sizing is excessive for what amounts to one analytical capability.
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 does explain the analytical dimensions returned (range, edge room, BNB value, fee/gas economics, chosen width and its backtest rationale, spare BNB impact) and states 'Calling this tool returns the terms.' What it omits is the shape of that answer and any error/empty-position handling, so an agent knows what is computed but not what it will receive.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'task' parameter is documented as 'What you want, with the address in it.' The description implies an address-bearing request ('about yours') and enumerates what the agent will evaluate, but adds no syntax, format, or routing guidance for the task string itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter definition.
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 eventually conveys that this tool analyzes a PancakeSwap V3 LP position and decides on rebalancing: range status, edge room, holdings in BNB, fee vs. gas, re-set width, and spare BNB deployment. However, the core purpose is buried mid-sentence behind payment terms, and there is no explicit differentiation from the sibling lp_position_look beyond the word 'plan'. An agent can infer the purpose but must parse past pricing boilerplate to find it.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus lp_position_look, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent line is 'It reads and plans; it signs nothing on your position,' which describes behavior rather than selection criteria. The word 'plan' versus 'look' implies a distinction the description never makes explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
lp_position_look1 field changedInput schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "position": "7637521"
+ }
+]lp_position_looklp_position_planPancakeSwap V3 fee tiers of a BSC token, free; tier and range plan paid, or free holding 1M $BOBAI.
PancakeSwap best route, free; a rebalance priced on real pools paid, or free holding 1M $BOBAI.
What a BSC pool costs to trade, free; grid levels and break-even spacing paid, free with 1M $BOBAI.
Venus health factor of any BNB Chain account, free; liquidation stress paid, free holding 1M $BOBAI.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
