Get suppliers (lenders) for a specific money market asset by its reserve address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of suppliers to return (1-100) | |
| format | No | Response format: 'json' for raw data or 'markdown' for formatted text | markdown |
| offset | No | Number of suppliers 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 agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds minimal extra behavior—just the scoping by reserve address, which is also in the schema. No additional context about pagination or output format beyond schema.
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, no fluff. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Excellent for a simple read tool.
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 tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations and schema fully cover the agent's needs. It could slightly improve by hinting at return format, but the schema already covers format and limit/offset.
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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description mentions 'reserve address' but doesn't add any semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.
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 action ('Get suppliers'), the resource ('money market asset'), and the key parameter ('reserve address'). It distinguishes from siblings like sodax_get_asset_borrowers by explicitly mentioning lenders/suppliers.
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 context is clear: use this tool when you need the list of suppliers/lenders for a specific money market asset. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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.
