PancakeSwap best route, free; a rebalance priced on real pools paid, or free holding 1M $BOBAI.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools nominally split into 'free route lookup' vs 'paid full rebalance pricing', but the boundary is muddied: pancakeswap_best_route describes itself partly by explaining what the paid half does, and rebalance_plan bundles swap costing, transfer tax, and V3 range checks into one mega-tool. An agent can eventually tell them apart, but only after parsing dense prose rather than a clean one-line distinction.
pancakeswap_best_route uses a protocol-prefix noun-phrase style while rebalance_plan uses a plain domain_noun style; there is no shared verb_noun convention linking them. With only two tools, the divergent patterns are especially noticeable and give no predictable naming scheme for future additions.
Two tools is very thin for a portfolio-rebalancing server, and the imbalance is made worse by one tool being free/read-only and the other being a paid endpoint that merely returns terms. The scope would clearly benefit from separate tools for position checking, route quoting, and execution rather than cramming everything into a paid monolith.
There is no way to read current portfolio weights or V3 positions standalone, no transaction/execution path, and no way to specify or persist target allocations — key steps for an actual rebalance workflow. The paid tool returns cost terms only, so the surface dead-ends at pricing rather than completing the lifecycle.
Portfolio rebalancing, the free half: which PancakeSwap pool a swap of one token should go through at your size, and what it costs. The paid half prices a whole rebalance against the pools that would execute it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| usd | No | Trade size in USD | |
| address | Yes | A BEP-20 token address on BNB Chain (0x…) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It adds the free/paid split and the size-dependent cost notion, but does not clarify what 'costs' includes, whether quotes are live, or any rate-limit or failure behavior.
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 little waste, and the core purpose is clarified immediately after the framing clause. The 'free half / paid half' phrasing is compact but slightly jargon-like and could slow an agent's parsing.
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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential outcome: the recommended pool and the cost. It leaves some ambiguity around quote freshness and usage boundaries but is broadly complete.
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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's 'at your size' and 'one token' align with the schema but add no meaningful syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific purpose: finding which PancakeSwap pool a single-token swap should use at a given size and what it costs. It also distinguishes this from the paid rebalance-pricing half, though the opening 'Portfolio rebalancing' framing is slightly indirect.
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 free-versus-paid distinction gives clear context for choosing this tool over the whole-rebalance alternative. It does not spell out explicit exclusions or edge cases, but the usage context is readily inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Portfolio rebalance, priced against the pools that would execute it, 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)): The swaps that move a BSC portfolio to target weights, each one costed against its own pool: swap fee, price impact at the actual size, and the transfer tax measured from executed trades. Returns the cost as a share of the money moved, and names the holding the bill is concentrated in. It does not claim to know what a correction is worth — that is a judgement about risk, not a quantity in a pool. For liquidity it rebalances ranges: a range check of every PancakeSwap V3 position a wallet holds, any pair — in range or not, the room to each edge, and the same width re-centred on today's price, aligned to the pool's tick spacing. Calling this tool returns the terms; the answer is sold over x402 at https://agent.brainonbnb.com/answer?service=rebalance_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 declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: x402 payment terms, holder-pass signature-only access, what the returned cost represents, and the concentration of fees. It also explicitly says calling the tool returns terms rather than executing swaps, which is useful behavioral disclosure.
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 a dense, run-on block mixing purpose, payment mechanics, return values, and caveats. The core purpose is front-loaded, but excessive parenthetical detail and sales-channel information obscure the actionable parts.
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 planning/range-checking tool with no output schema, the description provides some return-value context (cost share, named holding, range details) and payment mechanics. However, it remains unclear how to structure the free-form task input and what exactly is returned before versus after payment.
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?
There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description does not add syntax, examples, or constraints for the free-form task parameter beyond the schema's 'What you want, with the address in it.'
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 names several related operations — portfolio rebalance costing, swap planning, and liquidity range checking — but never states cleanly whether the tool plans, quotes, or executes. It also does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool pancakeswap_best_route. The core purpose is inferable, but the payment/x402 framing makes it ambiguous.
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 describes scenarios ('For liquidity it rebalances ranges') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to the sibling tool. An agent must infer the conditions for choosing this tool.
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.
pancakeswap_best_route1 field changedInput schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "address": "0x0e09fabb73bd3ade0a17ecc321fd13a19e81ce82",
+ "usd": 250
+ }
+]pancakeswap_best_routerebalance_planPancakeSwap V3 range check for any position, free; re-centre plan paid, or free holding 1M $BOBAI.
PancakeSwap V3 fee tiers of a BSC token, free; tier and range plan 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.