SODAX Builders MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds useful context by specifying the domain ('money market') and the type of data retrieved ('lending and borrowing position'), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavioral focus beyond the 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format or structure of the position data, leaving a minor gap in contextual understanding.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (userAddress, chainId, format). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the position data is structured or what 'lending and borrowing' entails. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('user's lending and borrowing position in the money market'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sodax_get_user_transactions (which focuses on transactions) and sodax_get_money_market_assets (which focuses on assets). It precisely identifies what this tool retrieves.

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 context (when you need a user's lending/borrowing position), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sodax_get_user_transactions or provide exclusions. It offers basic guidance but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.