get_earningsGet earnings breakdown by pool: total earned, pending payout, paid out. Optionally filter by date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endDate | No | End date (ISO 8601) | |
| startDate | No | Start date (ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-01-01) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosure. It adds the breakdown categories and optional date filtering, but does not clarify that the tool returns all pools without pool-specific filtering (no pool parameter exists), nor does it specify the output shape. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but there is no explicit statement about side effects.
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, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the optional filter. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the returned breakdown categories. However, it doesn't specify the exact output format (e.g., array of pools) or how the date range affects the values, leaving some ambiguity.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with basic format descriptions. The description adds meaningful context by stating that startDate and endDate are for optional date range filtering, which goes beyond the raw schema descriptions. This is a valuable addition.
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 tool gets an earnings breakdown by pool, enumerating the three components (total earned, pending payout, paid out). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_balance (overall balance) and get_pool_stats (pool performance) by focusing specifically on earnings breakdown.
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 it: whenever you need earnings breakdown by pool. It also notes the optional date range filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate, so it's clear but not exhaustive.
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.