Return a risk-adjusted stablecoin allocation decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | ||
| chain | Yes | ||
| max_pools | No | ||
| min_pools | No | ||
| verbosity | No | full | |
| risk_profile | Yes | ||
| time_horizon | No | flexible | |
| capital_amount | Yes | ||
| signer_address | Yes | ||
| max_slippage_bps | No | ||
| min_pool_tvl_usd | No | ||
| excluded_protocols | No | ||
| attestation_required | No | ||
| max_allocation_per_pool_bps | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions 'risk-adjusted' but omits side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or output structure. Does not explain if the allocation is executed or merely computed.
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 it does not add value beyond the name. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema details shown), the description is vastly incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context for correct usage.
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%, and the description does not explain any parameter's meaning or usage. For a tool with 14 parameters, this is critically insufficient.
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 it returns a 'risk-adjusted stablecoin allocation decision', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that provide market snapshots, pool evidence, or protocol security status.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks context such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
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.