Retrieve the APR for a specific Indigo Protocol key, including stability pools and staking, to assess current returns.
Get APR for a specific key
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | APR key, e.g. sp_iUSD_indy, sp_iUSD_ada, stake_ada |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic read operation. Does not disclose whether data is cached or real-time, error handling for invalid keys, or idempotency characteristics.
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?
Extremely brief with zero redundant words or filler. However, the brevity borders on underspecification given the lack of output schema and the need to distinguish from similar tools.
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?
Critical gaps remain: no output schema exists, yet the description fails to indicate return value structure or type. Also omits relationship to sibling APR tools and domain-specific context (stability pools vs staking).
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 including specific examples (sp_iUSD_indy, stake_ada), the schema carries the semantic burden. The description mentions 'key' but adds no additional meaning regarding format, validation rules, or key taxonomy beyond what the schema provides.
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 the basic action (getting APR by key) but offers no domain context about what APR represents or what the key signifies. Fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'get_apr_rewards'. Marginally expands the function name but remains generically vague.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related 'get_apr_rewards', nor does it indicate prerequisites for the key parameter or valid usage contexts. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.