pools.inspectReads actual pool token addresses via Rootstock Vault to prevent reliance on guessed reserve or TVL data for a given chain and pool.
Read actual pool token addresses via Rootstock Vault; no guessed reserve/TVL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that results come from Rootstock Vault rather than heuristics, but says nothing about output shape, latency, or failure modes when a pool is unknown.
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 compact sentence with the key qualifier front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for the information gaps it leaves, but not verbose.
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?
No output schema exists and the description does not explain the return value (a set of token addresses?) or how the two required parameters map to it. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, more explanation is needed.
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 (pool, chain_id) are required but undocumented anywhere. The description never mentions them, so an agent gets no guidance on whether 'pool' is an address, a symbol, or an id, nor what chain_id format is expected.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (pool token addresses) plus the data source (Rootstock Vault). The clause 'no guessed reserve/TVL' distinguishes it from analytics-style tools, though it doesn't name pools.list or pools.observe explicitly.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'no guessed reserve/TVL' hints that this is the authoritative alternative to computed data, but the agent is left to infer whether to call this instead of pools.list, pools.observe, or analytics.tvl.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.