Post a comment on a token via GDEX Trading by supplying token address, chain, and message to share feedback or notes on a specific asset.
Post a comment on a token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| chain | Yes | ||
| userId | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| accountRef | No | Connected account from gdex_connect. Supplies session key, wallet address, API key and session data so no secret is passed in chat | |
| tokenAddress | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.12.0Input schema / properties / accountRefAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Connected account from gdex_connect. Supplies session key, wallet address, API key and session data so no secret is passed in chat",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "tokenAddress",
- "chain",
- "message",
- "userId"
-]New value: +[
+ "tokenAddress",
+ "chain",
+ "message"
+]v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations – no mention of auth requirements, what gets stored, rate limits, or validation, which is a real gap for a write tool.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is undersized for a 6-parameter mutation tool. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of substance.
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?
For a write tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it does not explain how to identify the target (tokenAddress + chain), what the message constraints are, or what happens on success.
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 coverage is only 17% (just accountRef documented), so the description must compensate, and it does not. It says nothing about tokenAddress, chain, message, data, or userId, leaving five of six parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 (post) and resource (comment) with an object (token), so the agent can tell it is a write of a comment. There is no explicit differentiation from the sibling get_comments, but the purpose is otherwise unambiguous.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. auth via accountRef), and does not route the agent versus alternatives like get_comments. Only the bare object 'on a token' is conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.