Get information about Orderly One API for DEX creation, graduation, and management
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category (e.g., 'auth', 'dex', 'graduation', 'theme', 'stats', 'leaderboard', 'admin') | |
| endpoint | No | Specific endpoint path or name (e.g., '/dex', 'verify-tx', '/theme/modify') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only information lookup but does not disclose return format, source freshness, authentication needs, or how the optional category/endpoint filters affect the result, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its terseness leaves no structure for explaining the optional filtering behavior.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what kind of API information is returned and how the filters shape it. The input schema covers parameter descriptions, but the overall behavior and return expectations remain largely unstated.
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 the two optional parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which makes the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get information about Orderly One API'. It also scopes the domain to 'DEX creation, graduation, and management', which helps distinguish it from generic siblings like get_api_info, though it does not explicitly compare itself to those 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 phrase 'for DEX creation, graduation, and management' gives clear usage context, telling the agent when this API-info tool is relevant. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases among the many sibling info/guide tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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.