SYNTHORA tvl-concentration: DeFi TVL drain/concentration signal — protocols anomalously losing TVL while token price has not yet repriced (temporal edge window). For liquidation and risk bots. Source: DeFiLlama. $0.03 USDC x402 Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | parametros del producto (JSON o texto) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a signal with a temporal edge window, pulls from DeFiLlama, and incurs a $0.03 USDC cost via x402 on Base. No contradiction with annotations.
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 single compact block that front-loads the core signal, then adds use case, data source, and pricing. Every clause adds useful information 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?
Given the read-only annotations, output schema availability, and the stated signal definition, the description supplies most operational context an agent needs. The under-specified 'input' parameter prevents a perfect score, since the agent still lacks explicit guidance on passing product parameters.
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 schema covers the only parameter with 'parametros del producto (JSON o texto)', so schema coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description itself does not explain how to structure the input or what product parameters are expected, so the meaning of the parameter remains vague for an agent.
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 what the tool surfaces: a DeFi TVL drain/concentration signal for protocols losing TVL before token repricing. It identifies the intended audience (liquidation and risk bots) and the data source (DeFiLlama), making the purpose concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling risk signals like volume_anomaly or threat_exposure.
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 description gives a clear use context: liquidation and risk bots looking for anomolous TVL drains before price repricing. It does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.
The Polymarket/resolution cluster alone has eight tools (dispute_risk, market_resolution, resolution_source_feed, resolution_verdict, polymarket_resolution_watch, polymarket_odds_movers, polymarket_whales, insider_radar) with heavily overlapping responsibilities, and several risk-verdict tools also blur together. Descriptions clarify somewhat, but an agent would frequently need to read full details to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
Nearly all tools use lowercase snake_case noun-phrase names like asset_risk and sanctions_screen. A few one-word compounds (codeaudit, macrobundle, txintent) and varying prefixes break the pattern slightly, but the overall style is consistent and readable.
30 tools exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy even for a multi-domain data marketplace. Many tools are individually sold data products, and several could be consolidated — particularly the resolution/verdict/source-feed group.
The surface covers the stated domains well: maritime/chokepoint risk, Polymarket resolution and trading signals, DeFi/macro data, and transaction/identity security. Minor gaps include no registry-list/query companion to registry_watch and no historical time-series endpoint for risk verdicts, but core workflows are not dead-ended.
