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…) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "address": "0x0e09fabb73bd3ade0a17ecc321fd13a19e81ce82",
+ "usd": 250
+ }
+]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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.