Return detailed evidence for a pool lookup: APR history, TVL, risk context, and suggested follow-up actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | ||
| pool_id | No | ||
| protocol | No | ||
| verbosity | No | full | |
| history_days | No | ||
| token_symbol | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. It only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent without crucial operational context.
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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and structured well.
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 6 parameters (0 required), an output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how input variations affect results or provide context for complex usage (e.g., filtering by chain or protocol).
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%. The description does not mention any parameters, their roles, or how they affect output (e.g., pool_id, chain, verbosity). With 6 parameters and no schema documentation, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema itself.
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 detailed evidence for a pool lookup, listing specific components (APR history, TVL, risk context, follow-up actions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_snapshot (market-level data) and get_protocol_security_status (security focus).
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 implies usage when pool-level evidence is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or prerequisites. It lacks exclusions or context for sibling tools.
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.