Competitive staking deposits versus Priority Pool deposits over a selected range.
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_competitive_staking"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | No | Lookback range. |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing beyond the subject matter: no read-only confirmation, no data freshness, no auth or rate-limit notes. For a metrics/comparison endpoint an agent cannot tell what it will actually receive.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the compared quantities are front-loaded ahead of the range qualifier. It is efficient, though the fragment style leaves the action implicit.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should hint at the return shape (units, series vs totals, base currency), and it does not. Given the low tool complexity and one optional parameter, it is minimally adequate for selection but thin for correct interpretation of results.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'range' parameter has an enum with a documented description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'over a selected range' merely echoes the parameter without adding format or behavior detail, matching the baseline of 3.
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 the two quantities being compared (competitive staking deposits vs Priority Pool deposits) and the time range, but uses a noun phrase with no verb, so it's unclear whether it returns a series, totals, or a chart dataset. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like sdl_get_priority_pool or sdl_get_sdl_pool.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sdl_get_priority_pool, sdl_get_priority_pool_batch_compare, or sdl_get_sdl_pool. Usage is only loosely implied by 'over a selected range'.
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.