get_available_resourcesGet total available Energy and Bandwidth across all active pools. Shows how much resource can be purchased right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resourceType | No | Filter by resource type (default: both) | |
| durationMinutes | No | Filter pools that support this duration |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. The verbs 'Get' and 'Shows' imply a read-only operation, but it does not disclose data freshness, aggregation methodology, or potential error conditions. This is basic but not rich behavioral 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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. Every word adds value: the first defines scope, the second provides practical interpretation.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description conveys both the output (total available amounts) and its meaning (purchasable now). It could include units or response structure, but for a simple read tool with no required params, 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The tool description mentions 'Energy and Bandwidth' which echoes the resourceType enum but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 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 ('Get total available Energy and Bandwidth across all active pools') with a specific resource. It distinguishes from buy/pool tools by focusing on aggregate availability, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 second sentence 'Shows how much resource can be purchased right now' provides clear context for when to use the tool (checking purchase availability). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is unambiguous.
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 have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists: get_prices and get_market_overview both provide pricing info, and get_available_resources, get_pool_delegations, and get_onchain_status all relate to resource status. Descriptions clarify these distinctions adequately.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_balance, register_pool, configure_auto_selling). Minor inconsistency: 'broadcast_signed_permission_tx' uses the abbreviation 'tx' while 'broadcast_transaction' uses the full word 'transaction'.
27 tools is excessive for a server with this scope, exceeding the 25-tool threshold. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_prices and get_market_overview, or the various resource-status getters). The high count makes the tool surface harder to navigate.
The server covers the core domain well: registration, balance management, pool registration and configuration, energy purchase, order tracking, swap, and voting. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for configuring auto actions (stake/claim) or cancelling orders, but these do not severely hinder core workflows.