assets.wrapper_underlyingProbe ERC4626 wrappers to retrieve the underlying asset via asset(); unsupported wrappers return unknown.
Probe ERC4626 asset() directly; unsupported wrappers remain unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| chain_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds a genuine failure-mode disclosure: unsupported wrappers return "unknown" instead of erroring. It still doesn't say what a probe costs (RPC round-trip, latency) or that "directly" means an uncached on-chain call.
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?
A single tight sentence with the operation and its caveat front-loaded, no filler. Brevity is achieved but borders on under-specification for a tool with two undocumented parameters.
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?
With no output schema, the description should describe what comes back (underlying address? null? the literal "unknown"?) and confirm the address is the wrapper, not the underlying. It only gestures at the unknown case, leaving a two-parameter, output-describing gap.
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 0% and both parameters are undocumented, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies that address is the wrapper contract address or that chain_id selects the network to probe, leaving the agent to infer both.
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 names a specific verb ("Probe") and resource (ERC4626 asset(), i.e. a wrapper's underlying), so the agent knows this resolves a wrapper to its underlying asset. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, assets.lookup, which likely also answers asset questions.
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?
Usage is only implied: "directly" suggests an authoritative on-chain ERC4626 asset() read rather than a cached/registry lookup, which hints at when to prefer it over assets.lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.