get_strategyGet one eligible strategy's full raw facts by its Morpho market id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Morpho market id (0x followed by 64 hex chars). | |
| chainId | No | Chain to target. Supported: 1, 4663. Default: 1. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the context that it returns 'full raw facts' and applies to 'eligible' strategies. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it could mention auth or rate limits.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function with no unnecessary words.
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, the description hints at 'full raw facts' but is vague about return structure. It omits clarification of 'eligible' and optionality of chainId. Adequate but not complete.
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%, so id and chainId are already documented. The description reiterates the purpose of the 'id' parameter but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema.
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 verb (get), resource (strategy), and input (Morpho market id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_strategies (which lists many) and get_positions (which gets user positions).
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 retrieving details of a single strategy by its ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_strategies or get_prices. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: building opening vs. managing transactions, reading positions, getting prices, listing/querying strategies, and simulating. No overlapping or ambiguous functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., build_leverage_tx, get_positions, list_strategies). The naming is predictable and uniform.
7 tools is well-scoped for the domain of non-custodial leverage positions. It covers all essential operations without being too few or excessive.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: preview (simulate), open (build_leverage_tx), manage (build_manage_tx with close/adjust actions), read positions, and explore strategies/prices. No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.