List liquidity pools ranked by composite Wealthville Score (0-100), freshly scored within the last 6 hours. Good for "what are the best pools right now?" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | "solana" (default), "evm" (all EVM chains), or one EVM chain e.g. "ethereum", "base" | |
| limit | No | How many pools (default 25) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating that pools are 'freshly scored within the last 6 hours' and that the score is a composite (0-100). This provides behavioral context beyond 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence efficiently states the purpose and key attributes; the second provides a usage context. Every sentence 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?
Given the tool has only two optional parameters, simple annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, ranking method, freshness, and a usage hint. It does not detail the output format (e.g., whether it returns pool IDs or full details), but this is a minor gap.
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?
Both parameters (chain and limit) have full descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add new meaning to these parameters, only implies that the output is a list. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents them.
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 lists liquidity pools ranked by a composite Wealthville Score (0-100), with freshness within 6 hours. This differentiates it from siblings like get_pool_score (gets a single pool's score) and get_signals_feed (signal data). The verb 'list' and resource 'liquidity pools' are specific and unambiguous.
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 includes a usage hint: 'Good for "what are the best pools right now?" questions.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, but the sibling names imply alternatives.
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.
