Request a token swap inside a Gitbank vault (e.g. USDC to WETH). Returns a confirm_code the user must post on GitHub to authorize execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount to swap | |
| to_token | Yes | Destination token: USDC or WETH | |
| from_token | Yes | Source token: USDC or WETH | |
| github_username | Yes | GitHub username of the vault owner |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool returns a confirm_code that the user must post on GitHub for authorization, explaining that execution is not immediate. This is crucial behavioral information not present in 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?
Two concise sentences covering purpose, example, and return value/authorization. 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?
Given no output schema, the description explains the output (confirm_code) and the required user action on GitHub. It covers essential context for a 4-parameter tool, though could mention prerequisites or side effects.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Request a token swap'), specifies the resource ('inside a Gitbank vault'), and includes an example ('USDC to WETH'). It also mentions the return value (confirm_code), distinguishing it from sibling tools like request_deposit or request_withdraw.
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 implies when to use (token swap in a vault) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. With many sibling request_* tools, explicit guidance would improve clarity.
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: informational gets/lists, action-oriented requests with confirm_code, and a status checker. No two tools overlap in function; e.g., get_stock_price vs get_rwa_portfolio differentiate price vs holdings.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for retrieval, list_ for enumeration, request_ for actions requiring authorization, and check_ for status. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
16 tools cover the full scope of Gitbank's functionality—viewing balances, portfolios, prices, transactions, and initiating deposits, withdrawals, swaps, stock trades, bounty assignments, and token launches. The count is well-proportioned for a complex financial/project management server.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for querying and initiating actions, but lacks a tool to cancel pending requests or to directly confirm actions (confirmation happens externally via GitHub). Minor gap, but core workflows are supported.
