Datai MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the scope ('across ALL supported blockchain networks and protocols') and types of positions included, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or error conditions. The description provides some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably makes complex external API calls.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds valuable context about scope and coverage. Both sentences earn their place by providing distinct information, though some phrasing could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity (querying multiple chains/protocols), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has significant gaps. It explains the comprehensive scope well but doesn't address behavioral aspects, return format, or limitations. For a complex DeFi query tool with no structured safety/behavior annotations, the description should do more to guide the agent.

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 already fully documents the single 'wallet' parameter with format examples and validation patterns. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify edge cases, multiple wallet formats, or how different address types affect results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get comprehensive DeFi positions') and resources ('for a wallet across ALL supported blockchain networks and protocols'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing comprehensiveness across all chains/protocols, unlike tools like 'get_defi_by_chain' or 'get_defi_by_protocol' which are more limited in scope.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('complete portfolio overview across 10+ chains and 15+ protocols'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for comprehensive overviews vs. more targeted sibling tools, but lacks explicit exclusions or named comparisons.

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