tvs_breakdownTotal Value Secured (TVS) breakdown by token category (canonical, external, native) for a specific L2 project slug or all projects; returns today's snapshot from L2BEAT.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Specific project (default: all) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "slug": "base"
+ },
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "TVS breakdown by token category and project",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the tool returns 'today's snapshot from L2BEAT', clarifying data source and temporality. This provides useful context beyond 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every part is essential.
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?
Given one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety and behavior, the description adequately covers what the tool does (breakdown by category, today's snapshot, from L2BEAT). It could briefly note that output is aggregated by category, but completeness is high.
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 schema already describes the 'slug' parameter. The description adds that it works for 'a specific L2 project slug or all projects', which reinforces the default behavior but does not add new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool provides a TVS breakdown by token category (canonical, external, native) for a specific L2 project or all projects, and specifies it returns today's snapshot. This distinguishes it from siblings like tvs_history, which would cover historical data. Verb+resource+scope are precise.
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 by stating the tool is for a specific project or all projects, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like tvs_history or other related tools. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
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.