Integrator view (ERC-8021 attribution). Aggregated activity for an ERC-8021 integrator code: deposits created, intents, volume, top makers, top markets, daily activity. Resolves attribution from calldata. Window is fixed at 90 days because that is the only window currently materialized — the legacy windowDays parameter (single-value enum) was retired.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool resolves attribution from calldata and that the window is fixed, which are important behavioral traits. It does not cover auth requirements or response format, but for a read-only tool 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-loading the purpose and content, then adding a constraint about the window. Every sentence adds value with no 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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the types of data returned (deposits, intents, volume, top makers, etc.), explains attribution resolution, and notes the fixed window. This is comprehensive and requires no additional clarification.
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 'code' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description clarifies it is an 'ERC-8021 integrator code', adding valuable context beyond the raw schema. It does not specify format or validation rules, but provides enough meaning for correct usage.
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 explicitly states the tool provides an 'Integrator view' with aggregated activity for an ERC-8021 integrator code, listing specific data points (deposits, intents, volume, top makers, top markets, daily activity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_maker or get_taker.
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 explains that the window is fixed at 90 days and that the legacy windowDays parameter was retired, giving context on constraints. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives.
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.
Most get_* and list_* tools target distinct domain entities, but several high-level analytics endpoints overlap in purpose (get_analytics_summary, get_protocol_overview, get_market_summary, get_timeseries, get_leaderboard), and pairs like get_deposit/get_deposit_context and get_vault/get_vault_analytics create close boundaries. The descriptions clarify the differences, but an agent would need to read carefully to avoid misselection.
The tool set follows a strong verb_noun pattern: get_ for single-entity or detail views, list_ for collections, plus explicit action endpoints like export_trade_log, plan_routes, and search_explorer. All names are snake_case and predictable, with no mixing of conventions.
28 tools is on the heavy side for an MCP server, even for a broad analytics domain. Most tools map to real entities, but the surface is padded by overlapping summary/analytics endpoints and separate detail, context, and analytics variants for the same resources.
The server provides broad read-only coverage of the protocol domain: deposits, intents, makers, takers, vaults, delegates, verifiers, platforms, integrators, orderbook, routes, activity, and search. Minor gaps such as no list_vaults or list_integrators are workable via search/get endpoints, and mutating operations appear out of scope for an analytics-focused server.
