Fetch active crypto loan borrow contracts to track outstanding loans, filter by loan ID, order ID, currency, or term, and manage positions efficiently.
Query active borrow contracts (loans).
Rate limit: 5 requests per UID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| loanId | No | ||
| orderId | No | ||
| orderCurrency | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds a concrete behavioral constraint: a rate limit of 5 requests per UID, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to batch calls. Beyond that, it does not describe pagination or result-set behavior, but the annotations lower the burden for safety disclosure.
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 description is two crisp sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The rate-limit note earns its place, but the overall content is thin given the tool's six parameters.
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?
The description leaves critical gaps: there is no output schema, no parameter documentation, no pagination explanation despite cursor/limit parameters, and no differentiation from multiple similarly named sibling tools. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with the provided information alone.
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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters: term, limit, cursor, loanId, orderId, or orderCurrency. None are required, so an agent has no basis for choosing among them or constructing a valid request. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Query active borrow contracts (loans).' This is meaningful and distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like postCryptoLoanFixedBorrow. However, it does not differentiate it from similar get/query siblings such as getCryptoLoanFixedBorrowOrderInfo or queryFixedBorrowContracts.
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 word 'active' implies this tool is for current/ongoing loans rather than historical records, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling-specific exclusions or selection criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.