Distribution of SDL locked by boost tier from reSDL NFTs.
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_sdl_tier_distribution"
}
}| 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 does not say whether the result is a point-in-time snapshot or an aggregate, whether it requires any chain/indexing access, or what shape the output takes. For a no-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.
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 or redundancy, and the identifying noun ('Distribution of SDL') is front-loaded. Brevity here shades into under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is clean.
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, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information — yet it never defines what 'distribution' measures or how to interpret a result. An agent can guess the topic but not the returned quantity, which is a meaningful completeness shortfall.
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, which is the baseline-4 case — there is no parameter surface the description could or should document. No further credit is warranted since no parameter nuance exists 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 phrase 'Distribution of SDL locked by boost tier from reSDL NFTs' names the resource (SDL locked), the grouping dimension (boost tier), and the source (reSDL NFTs), so the domain is identifiable. However, it uses a noun phrase with no verb and leaves the core metric ambiguous — counts of NFTs, amounts of SDL, or percentages per tier are all plausible readings. It also does nothing to separate itself from close siblings such as sdl_get_lock_tiers, sdl_get_resdl_positions, or sdl_get_priority_pool_distribution.
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 call this tool, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives. With siblings like sdl_get_lock_tiers and sdl_get_resdl_positions occupying adjacent territory, an agent receives no help choosing between them.
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.