Get borrowers for a specific money market asset by its reserve address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of borrowers to return (1-100) | |
| format | No | Response format: 'json' for raw data or 'markdown' for formatted text | markdown |
| offset | No | Number of borrowers to skip for pagination | |
| reserveAddress | Yes | The reserve contract address of the asset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's non-mutating behavior is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations and schema already provide, such as pagination details or response characteristics.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 simple read-only list tool with comprehensive schema coverage and annotations, the description adequately conveys the core purpose. It could mention pagination, but the schema already documents limit/offset, so the description is sufficient.
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 100%, so all parameters are fully documented. The description only restates the reserve address role without adding new semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 ('borrowers for a specific money market asset'), and identifies the key parameter ('reserve address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sodax_get_all_borrowers (all borrowers) and sodax_get_asset_suppliers (different resource type).
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 usage for a single asset via 'specific money market asset' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sodax_get_all_borrowers. There is no direct when/when-not guidance, but the phrasing gives a reasonable hint.
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.
