Full stake.link wallet portfolio by address.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"address": "<address>"
},
"name": "sdl_get_portfolio"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Ethereum wallet address. |
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 says almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only lookup, what the portfolio comprises (token balances, staking positions, rewards?), whether un-staked or historical data is included, or any rate/address-validation constraints. 'Full' hints at completeness but is not elaborated.
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 starkly under-specified for a tool with no annotations or output schema.
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 a terse description, an agent cannot know what the response contains or how it differs from sibling portfolio/position tools. The definition is incomplete for correct invocation in this large toolset.
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 there is a single parameter whose description ('Ethereum wallet address') already documents it; the phrase 'by address' adds no format, chain, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a retrieval verb and resource ('Full stake.link wallet portfolio') scoped by address, which is clear enough to identify the operation. However it does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like sdl_get_positions or sdl_get_priority_pool_wallet, so an agent cannot tell which portfolio view to pick without opening schemas.
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?
No guidance on when this tool should be used versus the many other sdl_get_* portfolio/position tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
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.