Priority Pool distribution lineage with live oracle state, merkle root, and IPFS tree metadata.
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_priority_pool_distribution"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | No | Priority pool. Default LINK. |
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 disclosure burden. It hints at the return payload ('live oracle state, merkle root, IPFS tree metadata') and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about whether the data is on-chain vs. cached, how fresh 'live' is, permissions, or response size. It adds some value over the name but leaves the behavioral profile largely undeclared.
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 the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the fragment style (no verb) slightly reduces immediate interpretability.
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 truth about the response, and it does list the key payload components — a real plus. But for a tool sitting among six Priority Pool siblings it omits the usage routing and behavioral context an agent needs to call it confidently.
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 'pool' parameter is fully documented with its enum (LINK, POL) and default in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, default, or selection semantics beyond that, so the 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?
The description names a specific resource (Priority Pool distribution lineage) and enumerates the data it surfaces (live oracle state, merkle root, IPFS tree metadata). However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the action (fetch vs. compute vs. analyze) is only inferred from the 'get' prefix, and it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings sdl_get_priority_pool, sdl_get_priority_pool_batch_compare, or sdl_get_priority_pool_wallet.
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 named alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would pick this tool over sdl_get_priority_pool, which appears to cover the same pool resource.
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.