Check a pending MoonPay purchase by session_id.
Returns status (pending/processing/completed/failed), amount_crypto, and the on-chain tx_signature once settled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caller_id | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destruction. The description adds value by specifying the return fields and that it queries by session_id, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. It does not contradict annotations.
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 two sentences, immediately stating the purpose and then the return fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary information.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description provides enough context for the main parameter and return fields. However, it lacks explanation for the caller_id parameter and does not set expectations for edge cases or error handling, making it minimally adequate.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains session_id as the identifier, but fails to mention caller_id's purpose or allowed values. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
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 the action ('Check a pending MoonPay purchase'), the resource ('MoonPay purchase'), the identifier ('session_id'), and lists specific return fields ('status, amount_crypto, tx_signature'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. It only states the operation without contextualizing usage.
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.