Read the BlazePhoenix staking engine's live proof-of-solvency from the chain: isSolvent(), collateral ratio and reserve figures. Zero trust required — the numbers are re-read from contract storage on every call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data is re-read from contract storage on every call, implying freshness and trustlessness, which goes beyond the empty schema. It does not mention failure modes or edge cases, but for a parameterless read operation, this is adequate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. It conveys the key behavior and return values without redundancy.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description effectively explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is self-contained and complete for a simple read-only check, with no unexplained gaps.
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, so the input schema is empty. The description adds context about what data is returned (isSolvent, collateral ratio, reserves), which is useful despite the absence of parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from this.
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 reads live proof-of-solvency data from the BlazePhoenix staking engine, naming specific elements (isSolvent(), collateral ratio, reserve figures). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote and xray_scan by resource and action.
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 obtaining solvency information and emphasizes 'zero trust required', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools is given.
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.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: check_solvency focuses on the staking engine's financial health, while get_quote provides DEX swap safety checks. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (check_solvency, get_quote). This is predictable and aids an agent in understanding the action and target of each tool.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal and borderline for a comprehensive DeFi interface. While the scope might be intentionally narrow, two tools are on the thin side and could benefit from additional capabilities.
The server covers solvency validation and swap quote safety, but lacks tools for staking actions (stake/unstake) or executing swaps. This leaves notable operational gaps for a full lifecycle, though the read-only safety focus is partially addressed.
