List all SODAX integration partners including wallets, DEXs, and other protocols
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Response format: 'json' for raw data or 'markdown' for formatted text | markdown |
| chainId | No | Filter partners by numeric chain ID (e.g. 146 for Sonic) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / chainIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Filter partners by numeric chain ID (e.g. 146 for Sonic)",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content context (the list includes wallets, DEXs, and protocols) but does not disclose additional behaviors such as response size, pagination, or the effect of the chainId filter. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not enriched.
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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then provides illustrative examples. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus the schema provides enough context to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. However, it could be more complete by referencing related tools or explaining the meaning of 'all' in a multi-chain context.
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%: both 'format' and 'chainId' have descriptions that meaningfully explain their purpose. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'List' and identifies the resource as 'SODAX integration partners,' with concrete examples ('wallets, DEXs, and other protocols'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sodax_get_partner_summary by indicating it returns all partners rather than a single summary.
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 retrieving a complete list of partners, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. For example, there is no advice to use sodax_get_partner_summary for details on a specific partner. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.
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.