List the dApps dappgrade covers, with current scores and coverage (free discovery manifest).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | filter by tier 0/1/2 | |
| chain | No | filter by chain, e.g. base, mainnet | |
| limit | No | max rows (default 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a 'free discovery manifest' suggesting read-only, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. However, jargon like 'dappgrade' and 'free discovery manifest' may reduce clarity for some agents.
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?
No output schema, so description should provide more on return format or use cases. Only lists what it shows but not how results are structured or what to expect.
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 has 100% coverage with basic descriptions, but the tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and identifies resource 'dApps dappgrade covers', clearly differentiating from siblings like get_methodology and get_score.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for discovery, but fails to differentiate from siblings or provide context on when to use this tool over others.
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 targets a distinct aspect: methodology explains scoring, get_score retrieves a verdict for a specific address, and get_universe lists covered dApps. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow the `get_<noun>` pattern consistently, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
Three tools is appropriately scoped for the server's purpose: one for explanation, one for querying, one for discovery. No redundancy or missing essentials.
Core operations are covered: methodology, scoring, and universe listing. Minor gaps like batch scoring or historical data are absent but not critical for the intended use case.