Get detailed information for a specific money market asset by its reserve address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Response format: 'json' for raw data or 'markdown' for formatted text | markdown |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description does not contradict these and adds the scope of retrieving by reserve address, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format defaults or potential external calls.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no redundant or extraneous wording. It is efficient and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is a simple read-only lookup with good annotations and clear parameter schema, but the description does not specify what 'detailed information' contains or how the format parameter affects output. Without an output schema, the agent may need to probe the tool to understand the return structure.
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%, and the description's 'by its reserve address' aligns with the reserveAddress schema property. The format parameter is fully documented with an enum and default in the schema, so the description adds little beyond what is structurally available.
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 verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'detailed information for a specific money market asset' and identifies the lookup key 'by its reserve address'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like sodax_get_money_market_assets and sodax_get_money_market_reserve_assets, which retrieve collections rather than a single asset.
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 when a user has a reserve address and wants details for that asset, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of when to use this vs sodax_get_money_market_reserve_assets or sodax_get_money_market_tokens.
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.
