Vault detail, delegated deposits, and config. Detailed rate-manager explorer view with delegated deposits, oracle configs, floor configs, and historical snapshots. Supports API key auth and x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| days | No | Number of snapshot days to return (default: 30, max: 365). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only notes authentication support ('API key auth and x402'), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, rate-limited, or has any prerequisites or side effects. The word 'explorer view' implies reading, but is not explicit.
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 three sentences and moderately concise, but contains redundancy: 'delegated deposits' is mentioned twice. The order is acceptable, with the core purpose first, but the second sentence restates much of the first with extra details.
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 the lack of output schema, the description hints at return fields (vault detail, deposits, configs, snapshots) which is helpful. However, it does not specify the structure or whether snapshots are returned by default with the 'days' parameter. For a tool with two parameters and a complex response, the description is adequate but not thorough.
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 50%: only 'days' has a schema description. The tool description adds no meaning for the required 'id' parameter (likely vault ID but not stated). For 'days', the schema already provides the default and max, so the description adds no value. The description should clarify both parameters, especially 'id'.
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 states that the tool returns vault details including delegated deposits, oracle configs, floor configs, and historical snapshots. This is specific about the resource and data returned, distinguishing it from simpler vault-related tools like get_deposit or get_vault_analytics. However, the term 'rate-manager explorer view' is somewhat jargon and could be clearer.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., get_vault_analytics, get_deposit, get_deposit_context). There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess.
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.
