defi_lp_analytics[$0.02 USD per call] DeFi LP pool analysis with efficiency scoring via DexScreener
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Path parameter 'address' | |
| payment | No | Optional x402 payment proof (EIP-3009 signed authorization). Call once without it to receive the payment requirements, then retry with the proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "address": "0x7ebff188f2Eba16518C02864589b1403a5d1296a"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the cost disclosure ('$0.02 USD per call') and the data source (DexScreener), which are useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence with zero filler. The cost is front-loaded, which is important for a paid API, and the core function is stated immediately. Very concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description must hint at what is returned. It says 'analysis with efficiency scoring', which implies some output, but lacks detail on metrics or format. The payment flow is fully explained in the parameter description. Given the simplicity and the annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate – the description is adequate but leaves the output format unspecified.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the tool is for LP pools, implying the 'address' parameter refers to an LP pool address, but this is not explicit. The 'payment' parameter is well described in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value but does not fully clarify the address semantics.
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 states a specific action: 'DeFi LP pool analysis with efficiency scoring via DexScreener'. It clearly identifies the resource (LP pools) and the type of output (efficiency scoring), and names the data source. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings, though it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'list'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where another tool would be preferable, and no exclusions. The only usage hint is the payment flow, which is about how to call, not when.
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.