Return live security status for a supported protocol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocol | Yes | ||
| verbosity | No | full |
| 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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'live' but does not explain side effects, authorization requirements, or idempotency. For a tool returning status, it lacks crucial transparency.
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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating the core function, but could include more detail without adding length.
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 has two parameters and an output schema, the description does not explain what 'supported protocol' means or how 'live security status' is defined. It lacks context for effective use, especially compared to sibling tools.
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 adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what values 'protocol' accepts or how 'verbosity' affects output. The tool name implies protocol is a protocol identifier, but without elaboration.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('live security status') with a qualifier ('for a supported protocol'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_market_snapshot' and 'get_optimal_allocation' which target different domains.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where other tools would be preferred.
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.