Get full SODAX configuration including all supported chains, swap tokens, and protocol settings in one call
| 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 scope information by listing what data is returned (chains, swap tokens, protocol settings), but it does not disclose potential response size, structure, or latency. This is a moderate addition beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no repetition or filler.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of indicating what the tool returns; it lists the major content categories (chains, tokens, protocol settings). It doesn't detail the exact structure, but for a config snapshot tool with no required parameters and a well-covered optional format, this is sufficient. Strong annotations further support 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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'format' with enum values, default, and description (100% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'full SODAX configuration' and explicitly enumerates what is included: all supported chains, swap tokens, and protocol settings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sodax_get_supported_chains, sodax_get_swap_tokens, and sodax_get_all_chains_configs by signaling an aggregate config snapshot.
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 phrase 'in one call' implies a strong usage scenario: retrieving the complete configuration in a single request rather than calling multiple specialized endpoints. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for partial configs, so it has clear context but no exclusions.
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.
