Get one lending market with every reserve it contains: supplied, supply APR, borrowed, borrow APR, utilization and risk tier per reserve. Market ids look like aave-v4-10-etherfi-cash, aave-v3-1-ethereumhorizon, compound-v3-1-usdc or morpho-v1-8453-cbbtc-usdc-86 — use list_markets to find one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| marketId | Yes | Market id, e.g. aave-v4-10-etherfi-cash |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does this well by stating what data the tool returns for each reserve and by illustrating typical market-id formats. It does not discuss error behavior or auth, but for a read-only getter this is a modest gap.
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 contain everything needed: the first states the tool's action and returned fields, the second gives examples and a discovery hint. There is zero filler, and the core information is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough of a return contract—the per-reserve fields—and the ID acquisition pathway. Minor details such as the exact shape of the response or the range of risk tiers are omitted, but these are not essential for a correct call.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema's single example by providing four realistic patterns of marketId and pointing the agent to list_markets to find a valid one. This goes beyond the schema's 'Market id, e.g. aave-v4-10-etherfi-cash'.
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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Get one lending market with every reserve it contains,' and immediately specifies the returned fields: supplied, supply APR, borrowed, borrow APR, utilization, and risk tier. The concrete market-id examples further define the tool's scope and differentiate it from aggregate tools like get_market_overview.
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 clearly provides context for when this tool is needed—getting a single market's per-reserve details—and includes the discovery step 'use list_markets to find one'. It does not explicitly contrast with get_market_overview or other similar tools, but the phrase 'one lending market' makes the primary use case clear.
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.
