Fetch current Styx pool liquidity and status, including real and estimated available BTC, to check pool capacity before depositing or using the pool.
Get current Styx pool liquidity and status. Shows realAvailable and estimatedAvailable BTC in the pool.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | No | Pool ID: "main" (300k sat max) or "aibtc" (1M sat max). Defaults to "main". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the two headline values returned (realAvailable and estimatedAvailable BTC), which is genuinely useful context for a read-only status query, but it does not confirm the operation is side-effect free, whether data is live or cached, or what else is in the payload.
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?
Two tight, front-loaded sentences that lead with the tool's purpose and its key output fields. The closing 'Tip' is a marginally relevant promotional pointer but costs only one short sentence.
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 single-optional-parameter read query with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and two named return fields, which is roughly sufficient to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is disambiguation from styx_pools and styx_status.
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% and the pool parameter already documents the 'main' (300k sat max) and 'aibtc' (1M sat max) options plus its default. The description adds nothing about the pool parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Get current Styx pool liquidity and status') and names two of the returned fields (realAvailable, estimatedAvailable BTC). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the closely named siblings styx_pools and styx_status, leaving ambiguity about which of the three to call.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus styx_pools, styx_status, styx_price, or styx_history. The only forward-looking sentence points at earning_opportunities as a follow-on, which is a cross-sell rather than selection guidance and gives no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.