pools.listRead Vault PoolRegistered events within an explicit inclusive block range and return block provenance for each result, supporting bounded DEX pool discovery on Rootstock.
Read Vault PoolRegistered events for an explicitly bounded inclusive block window, with block provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| chain_id | Yes | ||
| to_block | Yes | ||
| from_block | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the window must be bounded and inclusive and that results carry block provenance, but says nothing about the `limit` cap, pagination, or what happens when the window is too large.
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 sentence with no filler; the key constraint ('explicitly bounded inclusive block window') is front-loaded right after the verb and resource.
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, so the description should clarify what a result looks like — 'with block provenance' gestures at it but does not say whether it returns raw logs, decoded PoolRegistered entries, or paginated batches. For a 4-param event query the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps.
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%, so the description carries the burden. It successfully explains that from_block/to_block are an inclusive range and implicitly scopes chain_id via 'Vault', but the `limit` parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 ('Vault PoolRegistered events') plus scope ('explicitly bounded inclusive block window'), which is far more precise than the title. It is distinguishable from pools.inspect/pools.observe by being event-log oriented, though it never names those siblings 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?
There is an implied constraint ('explicitly bounded inclusive block window'), but no statement of when to choose this over history.events, pools.observe, or pools.inspect, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.