mcp-defi-router

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the audit checks but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any network or permission requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the result. For a security auditing tool, this leaves significant ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and specifics, making it easy to parse.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, the necessity or impact of chain_id, or any usage context. An agent would likely need additional information to invoke it correctly.

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 compensate. It does not explain token_address (though it is implied by 'token contracts') and completely omits chain_id, leaving the agent without guidance on its purpose or allowed values. This fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('audits'), names the resource ('EVM token contracts'), and lists concrete checks (blacklists, honeypot traps, tax anomalies). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cross_chain_bridge_optimizer and dex_liquidity_router, which serve different purposes.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by stating the audit purpose, but does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools. An agent must infer when to call it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only says 'calculates' implying read-only, but no disclosure of side effects, prerequisites, or output format.

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 with no wasted words, effectively front-loaded. However, it is so sparse that it lacks necessary depth.

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 complex 6-parameter cross-chain tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. The agent lacks information about parameter meanings, return values, or constraints needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and description provides zero parameter details. All 6 required parameters (from_chain, to_chain, etc.) are unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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?

Clear and specific: verb 'calculates', resource 'bridge routes', scope 'across EVM and Solana'. Distinguishes from siblings (contract security screener, DEX router) which serve different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'aggregates' data, implying a read operation, but does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that likely makes network calls across multiple DEXs.

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 fluff. It efficiently states the core action and metrics, demonstrating good conciseness. However, it is so short that it lacks necessary details, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structure problem.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the return value looks like (e.g., a single aggregate vs. per-DEX breakdown), nor does it clarify the role of token_address and chain_id. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based solely on the provided information.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description does not mention token_address or chain_id at all, leaving the required parameter and optional chain filter unexplained. The agent must rely solely on the property names, which is insufficient given the lack of contextual detail.

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 aggregates pool depth, 24h volume, spread, and pricing across DEXs, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (contract_security_screener, cross_chain_bridge_optimizer) by focusing on liquidity and pricing metrics, making its purpose clear without being a tautology.

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. It neither mentions the sibling tools nor provides any exclusions or conditions. An agent would have no indication of when this tool is appropriate compared to a security screener or bridge optimizer, leaving usage entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.