Get information about Orderly Strategy Vault API for yield optimization, strategy providers, and liquidity providers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category (e.g., 'strategy_vault_info', 'strategy_provider', 'fund_management', 'liquidity_provider', 'user') - use instead of endpoint to see all endpoints in a category | |
| endpoint | No | Specific endpoint path or name (e.g., '/v1/public/strategy_vault/vault/info', 'sp/info') |
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 state whether authentication is required, whether it returns endpoint documentation or metadata, or what happens when no category/endpoint is supplied.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though it omits useful context that could be added without bloat.
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 low-complexity, two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain but leaves gaps around when to choose it over sibling tools and what the response represents. It is minimally adequate but not complete enough to fully guide selection.
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%, with both parameters fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 Strategy Vault API') and adds the domain scope ('yield optimization, strategy providers, and liquidity providers'). It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like get_api_info by naming the Strategy Vault, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_api_info or other domain-specific info tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_api_info, get_indexer_api_info, or search_orderly_docs. The domain hint implies usage, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are provided.
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.