Datai MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the output structure ('aggregated balance information grouped by protocol') and purpose ('for diversification analysis and risk assessment'), which helps the agent understand what kind of data to expect beyond the safety profile already covered by 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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second explains the output format and use case. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the output structure and purpose, though it could benefit from mentioning limitations like supported protocols or data freshness.

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%, with both parameters fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., wallet format specifics or chain enum values), so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 DeFi protocol balances'), target resource ('for a wallet on a specific blockchain network'), and scope ('aggregated balance information grouped by protocol'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on per-chain protocol grouping rather than multi-chain, overall balances, or protocol-specific queries.

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 ('for diversification analysis and risk assessment') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_defi_multi_chains' or 'get_overall_balance_by_chain'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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