Get detailed configuration for all spoke chains including contract addresses, RPCs, and token configs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Response format: 'json' for raw data or 'markdown' for formatted text | markdown |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the returned data scope and categories but does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, response size, or rate limits. No contradiction exists.
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 that immediately states the action and resource, then lists specific content categories. No filler or redundant phrases; every word adds value.
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 read-only configuration retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently lists the major return categories (contract addresses, RPCs, token configs). The `format` parameter is covered by the schema. However, it does not explain the structure or differences between markdown and JSON output, which would improve completeness.
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 single parameter `format` is fully documented in the input schema with an enum, default value, and description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed configuration for all spoke chains'), enumerating key content (contract addresses, RPCs, token configs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as sodax_get_supported_chains (which likely lists chain IDs only) and sodax_get_all_config (which may be broader or different).
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 implies scope ('all spoke chains') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of sibling tools like sodax_get_all_config or sodax_get_supported_chains. Users must infer usage solely from the name and content list.
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.
Several tools have overlapping scopes: sodax_get_token_supply, sodax_get_total_supply, and sodax_get_circulating_supply all provide supply data, and the four money_market_* getters could be conflated. However, most tools are distinct and descriptions help.
The sodax_* tools follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern, but docs_* tools mix camelCase (getPage, searchDocumentation) with snake_case (list_tools), and there are non-get verbs like refresh and submit. This inconsistency makes the naming pattern less predictable.
With 40 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for even a comprehensive API. Many endpoints are granular (e.g., separate supply tools) and could be consolidated, making the set feel bloated.
The tools cover a wide range of SODAX features: docs, money market, AMM, relay, solver, token data, and user positions. Missing are write operations (except relay_submit) and a few data endpoints like pool details, but for a query-oriented MCP it's largely complete.
