List active ERC-20 token approvals (spender grants) on this account. Useful before proposing a swap to confirm the CoW vault is approved.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_token_spender_grants"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys scope ('active' grants, 'on this account'), implying expired or revoked approvals are filtered out, and implies a read-only lookup. It does not describe the return shape, chain coverage, or whether zero results is a normal outcome, which matters for a verification step.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the use case. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 and no annotations, the description should describe what a returned grant record contains or what an empty result means, especially since it is positioned as a pre-swap check. It covers purpose and timing but leaves the agent guessing about the response.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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: 'List active ERC-20 token approvals (spender grants) on this account.' The parenthetical clarifies the domain term, and no sibling tool performs the same listing (propose_token_approve only proposes new approvals). It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from those siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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?
Gives a concrete when-to-use: 'Useful before proposing a swap to confirm the CoW vault is approved,' which tells the agent this is a pre-swap verification step. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to call it, so it falls short of the 5 bar.
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.