Venus supply rates on BNB Chain, free; whether moving pays its gas paid, or free holding 1M $BOBAI.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are mostly distinct: venus_supply_rates provides free current Venus market rates, while yield_plan adds the paid ranking and move-payback decision. There is still some overlap because both rank Venus markets by supply yield, so an agent could hesitate when asked simply for the best yield.
Both names use snake_case and are reasonably descriptive, with no camelCase or mixed-delimiter chaos. The pattern is not fully parallel: venus_supply_rates is a domain-specific data noun, while yield_plan is a broader action/outcome noun.
Two tools is thin for a yield-optimizer surface, though the free-rate vs paid-plan split is defensible. It sits at the borderline where additional market-detail or execution tools would likely be expected.
The core advisory workflow is covered: current Venus supply rates and a paid plan for whether moving a position pays for itself. However, the paid answer is gated behind x402 terms rather than returned directly, and the surface lacks supporting operations such as market details, gas estimation, or execution, creating notable workflow gaps.
Yield optimisation, the free half: the supply rate of every Venus market on BNB Chain now, read from each market’s contract, best first (the paid answer cross-checks every rate against the market’s own rate model); venus_usdt_rate_pct at the top. The paid half says whether moving YOUR deposit pays for itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, open-world read. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by identifying the source as each market contract, specifying best-first ordering, and noting that the free rates are not cross-checked against the market rate model.
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 substantive information is front-loaded, but the phrasing is somewhat promotional and indirect, with phrases like 'the free half' and 'the paid half' adding word count. It remains understandable, but a more direct statement of scope and ordering would be cleaner.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to know that it returns all Venus market supply rates on BNB Chain, sorted best first, with venus_usdt_rate_pct highlighted. It does not fully describe the return structure, but the core result is clear.
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 no input parameters, so parameter semantics are minimal by design. The baseline for a zero-parameter schema is 4, and there are no parameter meanings that the description needs to compensate for.
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 resource and scope: the supply rate of every Venus market on BNB Chain, read from each market contract and ordered best first. It distinguishes this free rate snapshot from the paid analysis, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool yield_plan.
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 implied through the free-versus-paid framing: this tool provides raw rates, while the paid half evaluates whether moving a deposit pays for itself. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over yield_plan or state exclusions and prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Venus yield ranking, and whether moving pays for itself, 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)): Every Venus core-pool market ranked by supply APY, computed from the rate per block and a block time measured against the chain rather than the 10,512,000-blocks-a-year constant most published BSC yield figures still use — which understates these rates by about 6.7x. Cross-checked on the chain: each market's supply rate is re-derived from its borrow rate, utilisation and reserve factor (the rule Venus's rate model pays by), and Venus's published APY is compared on top when their API answers — every row and the summary say what agreed, and a divergence is named. Given an amount and what you earn today it returns the days until a move pays for its own gas, which below a certain position size is never. Calling this tool returns the terms; the answer is sold over x402 at https://agent.brainonbnb.com/answer?service=yield_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, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important non-annotation context: calling the tool returns terms only, while the actual answer is sold over x402 or ERC-8183 escrow, with a holder pass option. Some phrasing such as 'the paid half' is opaque, but the payment behavior is unusually well disclosed.
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 long, run-on sentence with nested parentheticals that bury the payment terms and core purpose. Some methodology detail is useful, but it is not front-loaded or cleanly 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?
With no output schema, the description does explain that rows and a summary are returned, what agreement/divergence means, and that break-even days are computed. It also covers payment and terms, though the exact task input packaging and sold-answer mechanics remain somewhat vague.
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 as 'What you want, with the address in it.' The description adds that an amount and current earnings are needed, but it does not clarify the task string format or how those inputs should be packaged beyond 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?
States a specific verb and resource: ranks Venus core-pool markets by supply APY and computes whether moving pays for itself. The purpose is clear, but the description never names or distinguishes the sibling tool venus_supply_rates.
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?
Implies usage when comparing Venus markets and evaluating gas break-even from an amount and current earnings. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to the alternative venus_supply_rates.
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_supply_rates1 field changedInput schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]venus_supply_ratesyield_planVenus health factor of any BNB Chain account, free; liquidation stress paid, free holding 1M $BOBAI.
PancakeSwap 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.