Token metadata, price, liquidity, volume, holder count.
Provide token_address (mint) or a known symbol. Merges Helius (metadata) with Birdeye (market data).
Free (no technology service fee) -- a read with no transaction notional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | ||
| caller_id | No | ||
| token_address | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly annotations, it mentions that the tool is free, has no technology service fee, and is a read with no transaction notional. It also discloses that it merges data from Helius and Birdeye, providing useful implementation 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 concise and avoids fluff, covering key aspects in three sentences. The structure is clear, though the initial list of outputs is a bit terse.
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?
It explains what the tool returns, how to specify inputs, data sources, cost, and read-only nature. It does not describe error cases or output format, but for a read tool with such a straightforward purpose, this is 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?
The description adds meaning to token_address (mint) and symbol (known symbol), but does not explain caller_id. This covers about two-thirds of the parameters, providing useful clarification beyond the bare 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 clearly states that the tool returns token metadata, price, liquidity, volume, and holder count. This is a specific, action-oriented summary that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token_classification or get_token_risk_assessment.
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?
It gives input guidance ('Provide token_address (mint) or a known symbol') but does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks explicit context such as 'Use when you need comprehensive token info' or comparisons to other token-related 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.
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.