AlertRaised and Slashed event history for Chainlink staking.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "sdl_get_chainlink_alerts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement of time window, ordering, volume, or pagination, and no note on whether this returns aggregated history or raw events. It implies a read query, which is plausible, but nothing about result shape or scope is confirmed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably clipped to the point of under-specification rather than optimal concision.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about this tool, and it does not say what an alert entry contains, what time span is covered, or how results are limited. For a data-retrieval tool with no structured support, that is a meaningful gap.
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 takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is irrelevant and the baseline of 4 applies. The description makes no attempt to explain omitted parameters, which is acceptable given there are none to explain.
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 names a specific resource (AlertRaised and Slashed event history) scoped to Chainlink staking, so an agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like sdl_get_chainlink_staking or sdl_get_chainlink_operators. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource, and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent Chainlink tools (staking, unbonding, operators, ecosystem, intel). The agent must infer from the noun phrase alone that this is the alert/slashing-specific view.
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.