Barker's stablecoin market snapshot: total market cap, yield-bearing cap, asset distribution, chain distribution. Use for 'stablecoin market cap', 'USDT market share', '稳定币市场份额'. share_pct fields are decimals (0.425 = 42.5%). (paid: $0.001 per call via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds key behavioral details: share_pct fields are decimals (0.425 = 42.5%) and the call costs $0.001 via x402. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand data format and cost.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage examples and a critical data format note. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary detail.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, usage, data format, and cost. It lacks an explicit output structure but is sufficient for this low-complexity tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and instead provides context about output fields (share_pct), which is useful.
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 stablecoin market snapshot with specific metrics (total cap, yield-bearing cap, asset distribution, chain distribution). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_trend or pool_search.
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 provides explicit example use cases ('stablecoin market cap', 'USDT market share', '稳定币市场份额'), giving clear context on when to use. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is direct and actionable.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: yield recommendation, pool listing, execution discovery, quoting, detail/history, market data, cross-chain routes, and position monitoring. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'barker_<domain>_<action>' using snake_case. The naming is descriptive and predictable, making it easy for an agent to understand the purpose of each tool.
With 11 tools, the server covers the entire stablecoin yield workflow without being bloated. Each tool contributes to discovery, execution, monitoring, or market analysis, and none feel superfluous.
The tool set provides end-to-end coverage for stablecoin yield management: from discovery and analysis to execution and position monitoring. Missing features like batch position queries are outside the server's stated scope.
