Return aggregate DaoRoute market, data coverage, and candidate pool intelligence without exposing raw datasets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | USDC | |
| chain | No | auto | |
| max_pools | No | ||
| verbosity | No | full | |
| risk_profile | No | conservative | |
| stablecoin_only | No | ||
| min_pool_tvl_usd | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states 'without exposing raw datasets' implying aggregate/safe read. But it does not mention rate limits, side effects, or authentication needs. The description is insufficient for a complete behavioral profile.
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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details. Could be more informative while still being concise.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters with no schema descriptions and no parameter usage in the description. While there is an output schema, the description does not help the agent parameterize the call effectively. Incomplete for this complexity level.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention any parameter. Parameter names like 'risk_profile' and 'verbosity' need more context. The description fails to add meaning beyond parameter names and defaults.
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 the tool returns aggregate market intelligence without raw datasets. It distinguishes from siblings which focus on allocation, evidence, and security. However, 'aggregate' and 'candidate pool intelligence' are somewhat vague.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. An agent would not know if this is for quick overviews or for specific use cases. No usage context provided.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: market snapshot, allocation optimization, pool evidence, and protocol security. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the same 'get_' verb-noun pattern (get_market_snapshot, get_optimal_allocation, get_pool_evidence, get_protocol_security_status), making names predictable and easy to navigate.
With 4 tools, the server is concise and focused on core DeFi insights. While slightly on the lower side, it avoids bloat and each tool serves a meaningful function.
The tool set covers key read-only operations: market overview, allocation decisions, pool details, and security. Missing a pool listing tool, but core intelligence needs are met for a decision-support server.