record_predictionsRecord a complete structured prediction document for downstream evaluation. Call once with the exact machine-readable prediction; provide the human-readable report separately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| predictions | Yes | The complete structured prediction document for this run. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recorded | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'record,' which strongly implies a write operation, while the annotation readOnlyHint=true declares the operation as read-only. This is a direct contradiction. No other behavioral context is provided.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage instruction. Every word is necessary, with no filler or repetition.
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 description gives basic usage but leaves the side-effect ambiguity unresolved due to the contradiction between 'record' and readOnlyHint. A single nested object parameter and an output schema exist, yet the description fails to clarify whether or how data is persisted, making it incomplete.
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 already describes the 'predictions' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful format guidance: 'exact machine-readable prediction' and separating the human-readable report, which enriches the parameter's intended use beyond the schema.
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 ('record') with a clear object ('complete structured prediction document') and purpose ('for downstream evaluation'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings, which are mostly read-only getters or calculations.
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 explicit usage instructions: call once with the exact machine-readable prediction, and provide the human-readable report separately. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling appears to serve the same recording function, making context clear.
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.
Most tools target distinct blockchain/DeFi resources and actions. A few pairs like get_lending_rates vs get_yield_rates and get_defi_positions vs get_liquidation_risk have overlapping boundaries, but detailed descriptions and explicit redundancy notes (e.g., get_eth_balance vs get_wallet_portfolio) reduce confusion.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_block, convert_currency, decode_transaction). The only minor deviations are noun-first names like http_fetch and web_search, but the style is uniform and predictable.
At 27 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' and feels heavy. While the breadth of DeFi and crypto features justifies some size, the number is unwieldy for an agent to scan efficiently and could be consolidated (e.g., merging balance-related tools).
The tool surface covers a wide range of blockchain data: balances, prices, TVL, yields, DEX quotes, gas, block/transaction details, approvals, and DeFi positions. Gaps include lack of wallet transaction history and NFT support, but these are beyond the server's clear focus on read-only DeFi analytics.