mm_infoNetworks, contract addresses, fees, the arbitration panel, and the rules MM follows. No token needed.
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": "mm_info"
}
}| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful auth context with 'No token needed' and scope, but does not mention rate limits, caching, or response detail.
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?
Two short sentences are front-loaded with the content list and contain no wasted wording. The size is appropriate for a zero-parameter informational tool.
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?
For a simple read-only reference endpoint with no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the topics and the auth requirement sufficiently. It could explicitly state that it returns documentation, but no critical caller information is missing.
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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% for the empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; 'No token needed' is auth context rather than parameter 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 enumerates the exact reference material returned, including networks, contract addresses, fees, the arbitration panel, and MM rules, so an agent can tell this is the static-information tool rather than a deal action. It does not explicitly say it returns documentation, which keeps it from a 5.
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 sentence says when to call this instead of the transactional mm_* siblings, nor when not to call it. 'No token needed' implies it is safe before authentication, but the usage guidance remains implicit.
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.