Get the Wealthville verdict (ENTER/HOLD/EXIT/AVOID) and scores (enter/hold/exit + composite Wealthville Score, 0-100) for one liquidity pool. Use before recommending or opening any LP position. Accepts a Solana pool address (base58) or an EVM 0x address / DefiLlama pool UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool_address | Yes | Pool address: Solana base58, EVM 0x, or DefiLlama UUID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the output (verdict options and score range) and input flexibility (multiple address types), without contradicting annotations.
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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output, and the second provides usage guidance and input requirements. No wasted words.
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?
The description specifies the output in detail (verdict categories and score names/range) and the input format (address types). Without an output schema, this provides sufficient context for the agent. Minor missing detail on exact JSON structure prevents a 5.
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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter description in the schema matching the tool description. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 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 verb 'Get' and identifies the specific data returned (Wealthville verdict and scores) for one liquidity pool. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_top_pools by focusing on individual pool assessment.
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 explicitly says 'Use before recommending or opening any LP position,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scoring a specific pool, retrieving signal feed, ranking top pools, and showing track record. No overlap exists between the tool functionalities.
All tool names follow the consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a noun phrase (pool_score, signals_feed, top_pools, track_record), maintaining a predictable verb_noun pattern.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused server providing liquidity pool scoring, signals, rankings, and performance history. No unnecessary tools and no missing essential ones for the core domain.
The tools cover the key operations: individual pool score, latest signals, top pools ranking, and track record. Minor gaps like historical pool scores or filtering capabilities exist, but the core workflow is supported.
