Cast bullish or bearish sentiment votes on tokens to share market outlook and gauge community consensus.
Cast a bullish/bearish sentiment vote on a token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| chain | Yes | ||
| userId | No | ||
| sentiment | Yes | 'bullish' | 'bearish' | |
| 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",
- "sentiment",
- "userId"
-]New value: +[
+ "tokenAddress",
+ "chain",
+ "sentiment"
+]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 write nature is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no auth/permission requirements, no indication whether a vote can be changed or is idempotent, and no rate-limit or side-effect 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is clean, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a 6-parameter write tool.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and only 33% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It omits the accountRef/session requirement, what the vote affects, and any outcome, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.
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 only 33%; only the sentiment enum is documented. The description explains nothing about chain, tokenAddress, data, userId, or the accountRef parameter that supplies the session key and credentials. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 and resource: 'Cast a bullish/bearish sentiment vote on a token.' An agent can understand the action clearly, but the description offers no differentiation from any sibling (e.g., add_comment could plausibly overlap), so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer when a sentiment vote is appropriate versus other actions in this large tool family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.