Curates top risk-adjusted USDC, EURC, and WETH DeFi yield pools on Base (Morpho, Aave V3, Aerodrome, Moonwell), pre-screened for TVL depth and audit status. Price: 0.010 USDC on Base or Solana.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | USDC |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | ||
| network | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "asset": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "network": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "network",
+ "asset"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, while the description adds substantive context: pre-screening for TVL depth and audit status, the source protocols, and the exact price and payment chains. That payment and screening information goes beyond structured metadata. It does not explain payment mechanics or rate limits, which would be needed for a 5.
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 two tight sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the price detail follows without unnecessary filler.
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 a read-only query with an output schema and safety annotations, the description supplies chain, assets, protocols, screening criteria, and price. This is nearly complete for invocation. Minor gaps remain around result freshness and explicit parameter-to-value mapping, but they do not block correct use.
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 0%, so the description must carry more weight. It lists supported assets USDC, EURC, and WETH, which partially compensates for the undocumented `asset` parameter. However, it never explicitly explains that `asset` selects among those values or what happens with unsupported inputs.
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 action (curating top risk-adjusted yield pools), the exact assets (USDC, EURC, WETH), the chain (Base), and named protocols. This is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as getSafeYieldAllocation, so it stops short of a 5.
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 never says when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as getSafeYieldAllocation or getOndemandMarketSnapshot. Usage is only implied by the topic, with no exclusions or routing guidance. This is a significant gap for an agent choosing among many risk/yield-adjacent siblings.
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.