Integrator dashboard: status, share, onboarded count, earnings breakdown.
Read-only. Every figure is fee-share USD (technology service fees the onboarded agents paid), never PnL -- a fee-share, never a performance-share.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caller_id | No | ||
| integrator_wallet_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description explicitly clarifies that all figures are fee-share USD, not PnL or performance-share, adding valuable behavioral context not inferable from annotations alone.
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 extremely concise, using two clear sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence lists the data categories; the second clarifies the fee-share nature. Every sentence adds value.
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?
While the output schema presumably covers return structure, the description omits critical context like the required integrator_wallet_address parameter, prerequisites, or a more detailed breakdown of the dashboard fields, making it incomplete for a tool with no parameter documentation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails entirely to explain the two parameters ('caller_id' and 'integrator_wallet_address'), their meaning, or how to use them, leaving the agent without necessary context.
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 provides an integrator dashboard including status, share, onboarded count, and earnings breakdown, using a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_integrator_earnings' which focuses only on earnings.
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?
Usage context is implied (for integrators wanting a dashboard overview), but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_integrator_earnings' or conditions for use.
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.
Multiple tools overlap significantly: close_perp_position vs perp_close, get_leaderboard vs get_score_leaderboard vs get_strategy_leaderboard, get_venue_status vs get_all_venues_status, send_token_social vs bulk_send_social, and get_crank_score vs get_score. Several read-only tools have nearly identical purposes, and the descriptions do not always clarify boundaries.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_balances, create_strategy, set_alert, list_webhooks). However, there are deviations like 'lst_swap', 'jupiter_swap', 'flash_loan', 'sr_backtest', and the use of both 'get_' and 'list_' for reads, plus category prefixes like 'perp_' and 'strategy_' that vary in order. Overall still readable and predictable.
177 tools is an extreme count for any server, far exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Even a full DeFi platform does not need this many separate operations; the surface is overwhelming and clearly not well-scoped.
The domain (Solana DeFi trading) is covered extensively across swaps, perps, lending, staking, strategies, signals, and support. However, there are notable gaps: no lend_withdraw, no direct way to close a lending position, no spot order cancellation (though aggregator-based swaps may not need it), and a general lack of tiered account management. The huge number of tools makes it hard to identify missing lifecycle steps.