Datai MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds useful context about the tool's purpose for 'comparison and portfolio analysis' but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data is returned. With comprehensive annotations, the bar is lower, and the description adds some value without contradicting 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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second sentence explains the value proposition and use case. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 comprehensive annotations (covering safety, idempotence, and open-world nature) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context for a read-only query tool. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description hints at what will be returned ('DeFi positions' for 'comparison and portfolio analysis'). For a tool with good structured metadata, this description is reasonably complete.

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 well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema - it mentions 'selecting specific chains of interest' which aligns with the 'chains' parameter, but doesn't provide additional meaning about parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 positions'), target resource ('for a wallet'), and scope ('across multiple specified blockchain networks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing multi-chain analysis rather than single-chain or protocol-specific queries, which helps differentiate from tools like 'get_defi_by_chain' or 'get_defi_by_protocol'.

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: for 'targeted multi-chain analysis by selecting specific chains of interest for comparison and portfolio analysis.' It implies this is for focused multi-chain queries rather than comprehensive scans, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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