Liquidity pools across DEXs. $0.02.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"api_key": "<api_key>"
},
"name": "get_defi_pools"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | tvl | |
| chain | No | all | |
| limit | No | ||
| api_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present. The description only mentions a cost ($0.02) which is non-standard and not a behavioral trait. No disclosure of mutability, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. Fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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?
Extremely short but under-specified. While brief, it omits critical information, making it ineffective. Not a model of conciseness as it sacrifices completeness.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain (DeFi pools), the description is far from complete. It fails to cover what the tool returns, how to use parameters, or any edge cases.
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 0%. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (sort, chain, limit, api_key). For a tool with required api_key and enum sort, the description adds zero value to parameter understanding.
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?
Description states it provides 'Liquidity pools across DEXs,' which gives a general idea but lacks specificity on what data is returned. Does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_defi_yields' or 'get_defi_tvl', leaving ambiguity.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context provided about use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that warrant its use.
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.