Get solver-side details for an intent including fill history. Use includeAll to see all solver documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Response format: 'json' for raw data or 'markdown' for formatted text | markdown |
| includeAll | No | Include all intent documents (history) instead of just the latest | |
| intentHash | Yes | The intent hash to look up |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful context by specifying 'solver-side details' and 'fill history,' plus the includeAll behavior, which clarifies what the tool returns without contradicting the safety annotations.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
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?
This is a straightforward read-only lookup tool with a fully documented schema and safety annotations. The description adequately covers the tool's scope; an output schema is absent but not critical here since the purpose and available options are clear.
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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (intentHash, format, includeAll). The description only rephrases includeAll's effect ('all solver documents') without adding new semantic meaning, so it does not improve on the schema.
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 'Get solver-side details for an intent including fill history,' using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'solver-side' distinguishes this from the sibling tool sodax_get_intent, which likely returns general intent data.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like sodax_get_intent. The only usage hint is 'Use includeAll to see all solver documents,' which is parameter-specific, not tool-selection 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.
Several tools have overlapping scopes: sodax_get_token_supply, sodax_get_total_supply, and sodax_get_circulating_supply all provide supply data, and the four money_market_* getters could be conflated. However, most tools are distinct and descriptions help.
The sodax_* tools follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern, but docs_* tools mix camelCase (getPage, searchDocumentation) with snake_case (list_tools), and there are non-get verbs like refresh and submit. This inconsistency makes the naming pattern less predictable.
With 40 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for even a comprehensive API. Many endpoints are granular (e.g., separate supply tools) and could be consolidated, making the set feel bloated.
The tools cover a wide range of SODAX features: docs, money market, AMM, relay, solver, token data, and user positions. Missing are write operations (except relay_submit) and a few data endpoints like pool details, but for a query-oriented MCP it's largely complete.
