Barker's historical APY trend for stablecoins vs. US Treasury benchmark over a lookback window (7–180 days). Use for 'DeFi vs treasury', 'is stablecoin APY going up', 'crypto yield trend', '稳定币利率走势'. (paid: $0.001 per call via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days (default 30) |
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 useful context like the lookback window and paid nature, but doesn't disclose what the trend output looks like (series data, chart, etc.) or any access/rate limits. This is a moderate disclosure level.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes use-case phrases and pricing. No unnecessary fluff.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the main purpose and use cases clearly, but fails to describe the return format or data granularity. Since it's a trend tool, the output structure (e.g., time series vs summary) is important and not addressed.
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 days parameter with min/max and default. The description repeats the lookback range but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 historical APY trend for stablecoins vs. US Treasury benchmark over a specific lookback window. This distinguishes it from siblings like barker_market_overview or barker_pool_history by specifying the exact comparison and metric.
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 gives explicit use cases ('DeFi vs treasury', 'is stablecoin APY going up') which help the agent know when to invoke it. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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.
