Get AMM liquidity provider NFT positions, optionally filtered by owner address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of positions to return | |
| owner | No | Filter by owner wallet address | |
| format | No | Response format: 'json' for raw data or 'markdown' for formatted text | markdown |
| offset | No | Number of positions to skip for pagination |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the owner filter detail, but that is also in the schema. It doesn't disclose extra behavioral aspects like pagination behavior or rate limits, which is acceptable given the annotations cover the key safety 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and the optional filtering capability. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 list tool with 4 optional parameters and a clear schema, the description is sufficient. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists and the purpose is straightforward. The description, combined with annotations and schema, gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (limit, owner, format, offset) having a clear description. The tool description itself does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AMM liquidity provider NFT positions'), and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sodax_get_user_position' by specifying the AMM context. The optional owner filter is also mentioned, which adds clarity.
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 clear context: use to retrieve AMM NFT positions, with an optional owner filter. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the owner filter and the resource specificity provide enough guidance for tool selection among the many 'sodax_get_*' siblings.
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.
