Datai MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide excellent behavioral coverage (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds useful context about what information is returned ('detailed information about lending, liquidity pools, yield farming, and other DeFi activities'), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence elaborates on what information is provided. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 rich annotations (covering safety, idempotency, and open-world nature) and complete parameter documentation in the schema, the description provides adequate context. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the return format or structure of the DeFi position data.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('DeFi positions for a wallet on a specific blockchain network'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for a single chain (vs. multi-chain tools like get_defi_multi_chains) and focuses on positions rather than just balances (vs. get_defi_balances_by_chain).

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 for when to use this tool ('for a wallet on a specific blockchain network'), which implicitly distinguishes it from multi-chain alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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