Explains Hylo backing and xAsset leverage, linking to protocol docs and showing current mainnet slot. Use it to understand how Hylo works without a wallet.
Describe Hylo backing and xAsset leverage with links to Hylo docs, plus current mainnet slot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It is a zero-parameter read-only-sounding tool, and the description does reveal what is returned (doc links plus the current mainnet slot), but it says nothing about freshness, caching, or whether the slot value is live.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the core content (backing and xAsset leverage) is front-loaded before the supplementary doc-links and slot clauses. Only minor polish would improve it.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description gives an adequate picture of the returned content for a simple zero-param explanatory tool. It stops short of specifying scope limits or freshness, which is the only remaining gap.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden to compensate for; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.
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 (Describe) applied to a specific resource (Hylo backing and xAsset leverage) and names the concrete payload additions (doc links, current mainnet slot). It is clearly differentiated from the sibling getters by being an explanatory rather than state-retrieval tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is for conceptual/background explanation rather than fetching live protocol state. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to an alternative sibling, so the routing guidance is only inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.