Find the highest risk-scored DeFi vaults, optionally filtered by asset, chain, or minimum TVL. Returns the top 10 audited vaults sorted by Philidor risk score (higher = lower assessed risk; scores are not a safety guarantee).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | Filter by asset symbol (e.g. USDC, WETH) | |
| chain | No | Filter by chain name or slug (e.g. Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Solana) | |
| minTvl | No | Minimum TVL in USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains return size (top 10), sorting direction (Philidor risk score), the meaning of higher scores, and a safety caveat. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it does not mention default behavior with no filters or error handling.
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?
Two sentences deliver the core purpose, filters, result cap, sorting rule, and a caveat without redundancy. The highest-value information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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 read-only listing tool with three optional filters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient orientation: what is returned, how it is ordered, and a risk caveat. Minor gaps like pagination and empty-result behavior are acceptable given the simple scope.
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 each parameter already has a descriptive definition. The description mirrors those filters ('asset, chain, or minimum TVL') without adding new parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate semantics.
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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('highest risk-scored DeFi vaults'), and key constraints: optional filters, top-10 limit, audited status, and Philidor risk score ordering. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_vaults or list_vaults_with_incidents.
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 the tool is for surfacing top vaults by risk score and supports optional filtering, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. Usage context is inferable but not directly contrasted with sibling tools.
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.
Most tools target a specific resource and action, but vault discovery/filtering overlaps slightly between search_vaults and find_safest_vaults, and get_market/list_markets could confuse agents. The descriptions include explicit disambiguation notes, which mitigates most misselection risk.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_, list_, search_, compare_, explain_, find_. The consistency makes the tool surface predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the server's broad but focused purpose: vault analytics, market data, risk breakdowns, and ecosystem lookups. No tool feels redundant or purely decorative.
The read-only analytics domain is well covered: vault lookup, search, comparison, risk breakdown, incidents, market overview, market events, protocol info, and curator info are all present. The only notable gap is the lack of direct discovery/list endpoints for protocols and curators, though vaults can often be used as an entry point.
