Venus health factor of any BNB Chain account, free; liquidation stress paid, free holding 1M $BOBAI.
Scored across 2 tools
Both tools compute the same Venus health factor for an account on BNB Chain. The distinction is a paywall split rather than a distinct operation, and an agent could easily call health_factor expecting the answer but instead receive terms.
Both names use snake_case and are mostly consistent in style, with venus_health_factor adding a domain prefix. However, neither name encodes the free vs paid distinction, so the pattern is consistent but not very informative.
With only two tools, the surface is thin for a health-factor monitoring server. The two entries are essentially variants of the same query, so the count feels borderline rather than well-scoped.
The set only exposes the current health factor and a paid-half stub that returns terms instead of a directly usable answer. There are no tools for historical monitoring, alerts, multi-account checks, or direct stress/liquidation analysis without external payment flow.
Venus health factor & liquidation distance, 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)): Health factor for a Venus position on BNB Chain, computed market by market from the Comptroller, with the collateral drawdown that would liquidate it and a stress table. Cross-checked against the protocol's own getAccountLiquidity — if the two disagree the answer says so instead of guessing. Calling this tool returns the terms; the answer is sold over x402 at https://agent.brainonbnb.com/answer?service=health_factor (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?
Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavioral context: the call returns terms rather than the answer, the answer is sold over x402, holder-pass authentication requires a signature and no transaction, pricing is stated, and the result is cross-checked against getAccountLiquidity with disagreement surfaced. This is unusually transparent for a paid read-only external tool.
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 key purpose and payment terms are front-loaded, but the description is a long run-on sentence with nested parentheticals and repeated payment/endpoint details. It contains useful information but is not efficiently structured.
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 complex paid external tool with no output schema, it provides strong context on pricing, authentication, external endpoint, and cross-check behavior. The main missing piece is how it relates to the sibling `venus_health_factor` 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single `task` parameter is already documented. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond reinforcing that the address should be included in the task, which is already 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?
The description clearly states that it computes a Venus health factor and liquidation distance, including collateral drawdown and a stress table. It is specific about the resource and computation, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `venus_health_factor`.
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 explains payment mechanics, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling `venus_health_factor`. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Health factor monitoring, the free half: the Venus health factor of a BNB Chain account right now, computed market by market from the Comptroller and cross-checked against the protocol’s own getAccountLiquidity; health_factor at the top. Give the account. The paid half adds the collateral drawdown that would liquidate it and a stress table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The Venus account (0x…) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses the computation method (per-market Comptroller aggregation, cross-validated against the protocol's own getAccountLiquidity) and, with no output schema present, tells the agent that health_factor sits at the top of the response.
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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the copy is padded with product framing ('the free half', 'the paid half adds…') and clipped fragments ('Give the account.') that read as ad copy rather than specification. Tightening would let the useful details — chain, methodology, top-level key — stand out.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers chain, method and the top-level return key, which is decent. It is still silent on edge behavior an agent will hit in practice: accounts with no borrows or no position, error versus null returns, and the remaining response fields beyond health_factor.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'The Venus account (0x…)', so the baseline is 3. 'Give the account.' adds nothing beyond the schema — no guidance on accepted address formats, whether unchecksummed input works, or what happens for accounts with no Venus position.
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: it returns the Venus health factor of a BNB Chain account right now, and explains the derivation (market by market from the Comptroller, cross-checked against getAccountLiquidity). It also separates itself from the sibling by positioning itself as the 'free half' versus the paid tool that adds liquidation drawdown and a stress table, though the sibling is never named outright.
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 is only implied: 'the free half' signals you get just the current health factor, and the paid half (the sibling health_factor) is what you want for liquidation thresholds or stress scenarios. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so the agent has to infer the routing from marketing framing rather than a stated rule.
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.
venus_health_factor1 field changedInput schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "address": "0xd319e1F8e987cf78333cEA853F455366640929cF"
+ }
+]health_factorvenus_health_factorVenus supply rates on BNB Chain, free; whether moving pays its gas paid, or free holding 1M $BOBAI.
PancakeSwap V3 range check for any position, free; re-centre 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.