Who launched it, what exit really costs, is the pool what it claims. Facts only, no advice.
Scored across 9 tools
Each tool targets a distinct subject (chain, wallet, token, pool, stablecoin, etc.), and descriptions clearly flag their scope. A few tools overlap: 'deployer' and 'safety' both include a deployer's launch record, and 'known' can apply broadly, but these are secondary to each tool's primary purpose.
Tools use a consistent pattern of short lowercase nouns/snake_case (chain, deployer, launch, safety), with no mixing of conventions. The singular 'launch' vs plural 'launches' is logical, but 'known' is an odd adjective that breaks the noun pattern.
With 9 tools, the server covers all major pre-investment checks without redundancy. Each tool addresses a distinct question and the size is well within the ideal 3-15 range.
The set covers chain health, token safety, pool safety, stablecoin peg, deployer histories, exit costs, and qualitative research notes, making it a comprehensive due-diligence toolkit. No obvious dead ends for an agent researching an asset before committing money.
Is this chain alive: TVL trend over 1y/6m/90d/30d. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.003 per call over x402 at /v1/chain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain name as used by DefiLlama |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on transparency duties. It discloses that output is 'Facts and flags only, never advice', which sets expectations for output tone. It also reveals cost/rate-limit behavior. However, it does not describe what 'flags' means, how errors are handled, or the exact response structure.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The pricing/limit info is useful context and not excessive. Slight lack of structural clarity (all in one run-on sentence) but overall efficient.
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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers the main purpose, output philosophy, and access limits. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from a brief note on expected response format or example values, which is a moderate gap.
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 single parameter 'chain' is fully described in the schema as 'Chain name as used by DefiLlama', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no further parameter details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 clearly indicates the tool checks chain liveness via TVL trends over multiple periods ('Is this chain alive: TVL trend over 1y/6m/90d/30d'). This distinct purpose separates it from siblings like exit_cost or pool. The phrasing is slightly informal, but the verb+resource is identifiable.
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?
The description provides practical usage context: free tier rate limits, shared quota with website, and paid access via x402. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention scenarios where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The full launch record of a Solana wallet from our own live recording: how many tokens it deployed, how many reached the exchange, its graduation rate against measured base rates, and whether it is a serial minter with no survivors. Data no feed reconstructs. Flags serial_minter, never_graduated. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.010 per call over x402 at /v1/deployer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes | Solana wallet address of the deployer |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description fully owns behavioral disclosure. It covers rate limits ('3 calls per hour per IP'), paid access cost and endpoint ('$0.010 per call over x402 at /v1/deployer'), output tone ('facts and flags only, never advice'), and the specific flags returned. This is strong, beyond-schema transparency.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by flags, behavioral guardrails, and operational details. Every sentence earns its place; the only arguably promotional line, 'Data no feed reconstructs,' still reinforces why the tool is uniquely useful.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it enumerates the returned metrics, flags, rate limit, pricing, and endpoint. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool 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 schema already documents 'wallet' as a Solana wallet address with 100% coverage, so the description adds little about the parameter itself. It contextualizes the wallet as the deployer in a live recording, but no extra format, constraints, or validation details are provided.
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 clearly states the tool returns a Solana wallet's full launch record with concrete metrics: tokens deployed, tokens that reached the exchange, graduation rate, and serial-minter status. It also names the output flags serial_minter and never_graduated, making its scope and resource unambiguous.
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?
The intended use is clear: retrieve the deployer wallet's launch record, with 'data no feed reconstructs' indicating unique value. It also gives a firm boundary with 'facts and flags only, never advice.' However, it does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when to prefer this over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Real cost of exiting a Solana position AT YOUR SIZE — live route, not theoretical slippage. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.010 per call over x402 at /v1/exit-cost
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana token mint address | |
| size | Yes | Position size in whole tokens — the quote is for YOUR size |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns facts and flags only, never advice, and reveals rate limits (3 calls/hour free) and pricing for unlimited access. It also indicates the methodology (live route) but doesn't explicitly confirm it's read-only or describe error behavior.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds important behavioral facts. It includes pricing and endpoint details, which are useful but could be seen as slightly dense. Still, every sentence serves a purpose, and it's under four sentences.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, pricing, and usage limits. It doesn't describe the return format or specifics of 'flags', but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it's reasonably complete for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.
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 input schema already describes both parameters fairly well (mint address and size in whole tokens). The description adds emphasis on 'AT YOUR SIZE' but doesn't introduce new parameter details, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function: calculating the real cost of exiting a Solana position at the user's specific size, using live routing rather than theoretical slippage. It effectively distinguishes itself from potential alternatives by emphasizing 'live route, not theoretical slippage' and is specific about the resource (Solana position).
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?
The description provides context on when to use the tool: for factual real-world exit cost estimates rather than theoretical ones, and explicitly says it provides facts and flags, never advice. It also includes usage restrictions (free tier limits, paid access) but does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusion criteria. Sibling tools offer no guidance, but the purpose gives enough context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Do we hold a research note on this asset, protocol, chain or role that no price feed or TVL number will tell you: dead redemption bridges, ticker collisions, ended points programmes, closed marketplaces, capital gates. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.020 per call over x402 at /v1/known
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Asset symbol, protocol name, chain name or contract address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limits ('3 calls per hour per IP'), pricing ('$0.020 per call'), and the nature of the content ('Facts and flags only, never advice'). These are useful behavioral traits beyond a simple lookup.
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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The first sentence is long but informative, followed by a short limitation statement and practical pricing information. Every sentence has value, except perhaps the list of examples could be trimmed, but it helps clarify the tool's scope.
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?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, example use cases, limitations, and usage costs. It does not explicitly state return format, but 'Facts and flags' hints at the output nature. Overall, it is complete enough for a simple lookup tool.
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 schema already describes the single parameter 'q' with high coverage. The description adds extra meaning by mentioning 'role' as an accepted input type (not in schema) and provides examples of research topics (dead redemption bridges, ticker collisions), which clarifies what kind of queries are expected.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check if a research note exists on an asset, protocol, chain, or role. It uses a specific verb ('Do we hold a research note') and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing qualitative insights that price/TVL data do not provide.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (for qualitative research notes, not price/TVL data) and includes a limitation ('Facts and flags only, never advice'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it compared to sibling tools like chain, exit_cost, launch, or pool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Who launched this pump.fun token and what happened to their previous ones: launch count, graduation record, and whether the creator bought their own bonding curve. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.005 per call over x402 at /v1/launch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana mint address of the pump.fun token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool provides 'facts and flags only, never advice' and includes rate limit and pricing details, which are behavioral traits. However, it does not mention error handling, data availability, or read-only nature beyond what is implied, leaving some gaps.
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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then output details, and finally pricing. It is somewhat long due to pricing specifics, but each sentence adds value. The length is justified by providing essential usage constraints without becoming unwieldy.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (launch count, graduation record, creator bought own bonding curve). It also provides operational context (rate limits, pricing). While more detail could be given about the response structure, the description is sufficient for a single-parameter tool with a clear purpose.
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 schema already describes the 'mint' parameter fully as 'Solana mint address of the pump.fun token' (100% coverage). The description does not add further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the schema carries the semantic load.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to identify who launched a pump.fun token and their history. It specifies key outputs (launch count, graduation record, creator bought own bonding curve), directly distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze other aspects like chain, exit cost, known, or pool.
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?
The description implies usage for investigating token launch history but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. The context is clear, but it lacks specific exclusion criteria or references to sibling tools, stopping at implied usage rather than providing explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Live feed of pump.fun launches from the last 24h with creator context: who deployed each one, how many they launched before, whether they bought their own bonding curve. Poll with ?since= for only what is new. This history cannot be reconstructed afterwards. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.010 per call over x402 at /v1/launches
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| only | No | Keep only launches carrying this trait. clean = no flags raised. | |
| limit | No | How many launches to return, newest first. Default 50. | |
| since | No | Unix timestamp; return only launches recorded after it. Pass next_since from your previous call to poll incrementally. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limits (3 calls/hour free), paid tier pricing ($0.010/call), data retention (history non-reconstructable), and the advisory boundary ('Facts and flags only, never advice'). It does not describe the response format, but this is partially handled by the schema's next_since field.
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 information-dense but efficient: it opens with purpose, then covers incremental polling, data persistence, advisory nature, and pricing in four short sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a feed tool with three optional parameters. It covers purpose, usage, constraints, and data context, though it leaves the exact response shape unspecified—mitigated by the field descriptions and next_since behavior in the schema.
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%, with each parameter (only, limit, since) already having a descriptive explanation. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing ?since= polling, matching the baseline expected when the schema fully documents parameters.
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 clearly states the tool provides a live feed of pump.fun launches from the last 24 hours with specific creator context (who deployed, prior launches, own-curve purchase). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'launch' (singular) by emphasizing the feed/polling nature and the 24-hour scope.
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?
The description gives explicit polling guidance ('Poll with ?since= for only what is new') and warns that history cannot be reconstructed afterwards, implying real-time use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Yield pool safety: peg of every underlying asset, yield sustainability, emission dependence, exit depth. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.005 per call over x402 at /v1/pool
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | Yes | DefiLlama pool id (uuid), from https://yields.llama.fi/pools |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Facts and flags only, never advice', which clarifies non-advisory behavior. It also discloses access limits (free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; paid tier costs $0.005 per call), which is useful operational context. It does not detail return format or data freshness, but the disclosed behaviors go beyond basic expectations.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a key behavioral note and access/pricing information. It is concise, though the pricing sentence is somewhat dense and could be separated. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is logical, earning a 4 rather than 5 due to the slightly cluttered pricing detail.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand what the tool does, how to access it, and its behavioral boundaries. It does not define every metric (e.g., 'exit depth'), but the overall purpose and usage context are clear. It is complete enough without needing an output schema.
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 schema covers the single parameter 'pool' with a clear description (DefiLlama pool id uuid, sourced from a specific URL), giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the tool as providing yield pool safety analysis, listing specific aspects (peg, yield sustainability, emission dependence, exit depth). While there is no explicit verb like 'analyze' or 'evaluate', the noun phrase 'Yield pool safety' concisely conveys the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that likely cover chain info, exit cost, known issues, and launch, so the purpose is distinct and clear.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need safety facts and flags for a yield pool. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this instead of X when...', so the guidance is only implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Is this Solana token safe to touch: mint and freeze authority status, top-holder concentration, Token-2022 transfer risks, and the deployer's full launch record from our own recording. Flags MINT_AUTHORITY_LIVE, FREEZE_AUTHORITY_LIVE, CONCENTRATED, TOKEN_2022, SERIAL_DEPLOYER, DEPLOYER_NEVER_GRADUATED. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.010 per call over x402 at /v1/safety
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana token mint address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Facts and flags only, never advice,' discloses the data source ('from our own recording'), and lists possible flags. It also mentions free-tier limits and paid access, which sets expectations for throttling and cost. It omits response format and error behavior, but covers the most critical traits.
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 first sentence is dense but front-loaded with the core question and then lists checks and flags in a scannable way. The pricing/rate-limit sentence is useful for setting operational expectations. The text is efficient overall, though slightly run-on and with minor off-topic pricing detail.
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 carries the burden of explaining what the agent can expect. It does enumerate the six flags and the data sources, which is helpful. However, it never specifies the response structure, error handling, or criteria for flags like CONCENTRATED, leaving meaningful ambiguity.
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 single parameter mint is already fully documented in the schema as 'Solana token mint address,' so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra format, validation, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. This is acceptable because the parameter is simple and self-explanatory.
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 opens with a clear question framing the tool's purpose and enumerates specific checks (mint/freeze authority, holder concentration, Token-2022 risks, deployer history) plus the exact flags returned. This makes the function concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools like launch or pool, even though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'analyze' or 'check.'
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like known, deployer, launch, or pool. It only provides pricing and rate-limit information, which is operational rather than selection-based. An agent must infer the intended use from the name and content rather than being routed to it explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Is this stablecoin's $1 peg a hard anchor or a soft peg: does its price historically return to $1 (a redemption/arbitrage anchor) or sit below it (the market pricing risk), and is it dislocated right now. Flags SOFT_PEG, BROKEN_HISTORY, DISLOCATION. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.010 per call over x402 at /v1/stable
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Stablecoin symbol (e.g. USDC) or CoinGecko id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool outputs facts and flags only, never advice, and discloses rate limits and paid access. This gives the agent a solid understanding of the tool's non-advisory, read-oriented nature and its call constraints, though it does not explain the exact output structure or failure behavior.
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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to output flags, behavioral restrictions, and access limits. The first sentence is slightly convoluted with multiple embedded clauses, but every sentence adds distinct, useful information and there is no filler.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is analyzed, what flags are returned, the advisory boundary, and the access/pricing model. It could be more complete by explaining the meaning of each flag or the exact response format, but the essential information needed to select and invoke the tool is present.
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 input schema already documents the single 'asset' parameter fully, including an example and accepted forms (symbol or CoinGecko id), so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add further parameter-level guidance beyond the peg-analysis context, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.
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 clearly identifies the tool's resource (stablecoin $1 peg) and its analytical purpose: determining whether the peg is a hard anchor or soft peg and whether it is currently dislocated. It also names the concrete output flags (SOFT_PEG, BROKEN_HISTORY, DISLOCATION), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like chain, pool, or launch.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs factual stablecoin peg analysis rather than advice. It also adds an explicit exclusion ('never advice') and operational constraints (rate limits and pricing), but it does not compare this tool against sibling alternatives or state when another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
deployersafetystablelauncheschainexit_costknownlaunchpoolDeFi pool yield+security intelligence & token/contract risk scanner. USDC on Base via x402.
Evidence-based market data for AI agents deploying capital in DeFi. Empirical, not advertised.
Rug pull risk and on-chain forensics for tokens on Solana, Ethereum, Base and Robinhood.
Read-only Solana and crypto reserve-recovery scans, pricing, chain facts, and methodology.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
