Espresso staking status with on chain balances and external market price context.
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_espresso"
}
}| 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. It hints at being a read-only status lookup, but says nothing about data freshness, caching, chain/network scope, or what the 'status' payload contains, which is a notable gap given the tool surfaces on-chain balances and market prices.
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 padding, and the identifying content ('Espresso staking status') is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than wasteful, so it loses only marginally here.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about results, and it only broadly gestures at 'on chain balances and external market price context'. It is adequate for a low-complexity, zero-parameter read tool, but an agent still cannot anticipate the shape of the response.
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 there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate; nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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 identifies the resource (Espresso staking status) and three data domains, but uses a noun-phrase fragment with no verb such as 'retrieve' or 'fetch'. It also fails to differentiate itself from agency-overlapping siblings like sdl_get_chainlink_staking or sdl_get_positions, so an agent cannot easily tell which one to pick.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative. In a sibling set crowded with staking/position readers (sdl_get_chainlink_staking, sdl_get_positions, sdl_get_competitive_staking), some routing signal is essential and none is given.
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.