list_strategiesList eligible Spiral leveraged-yield strategies with raw risk facts (collateral/borrow APY, leverage ladder, oracle type, exit-liquidity, LTVs). Optionally filter by collateral category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | No | Chain to target. Supported: 1, 4663. Default: 1. | |
| category | No | Filter by collateral category, e.g. 'stable', 'ETH', 'BTC', 'stable-PT'. |
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds valuable context about returned risk facts (APY, leverage, oracle, LTVs), enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, zero waste. Every word adds value.
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 list tool with no output schema, description appropriately details return content (raw risk facts) and optional filter. No pagination or limitation details, but sufficient for a straightforward listing.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description repeats 'filter by collateral category' which is already in schema; no additional semantic value beyond 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?
Description clearly states the tool lists 'Spiral leveraged-yield strategies with raw risk facts', specifying exact content and optional filter. Distinct from sibling tools like 'build_leverage_tx' (transaction building) and 'get_strategy' (single strategy).
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?
Describes optional filter by category, giving clear usage context. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned; sibling roles are implied but not stated.
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.