Retrieve active crypto loan fixed supply contracts to review your lending positions. Filter by currency, term, supply or order ID, and paginate for precise results.
Query active supply contracts (lending positions).
Rate limit: 5 requests per UID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| orderId | No | ||
| supplyId | No | ||
| supplyCurrency | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. The rate limit disclosure ('5 requests per UID') adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, no other behavioral traits (pagination behavior, response ordering, filter semantics) are disclosed, leaving the description relying on annotations for the safety profile.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the rate-limit note. The '(lending positions)' parenthetical earns its place by disambiguating the domain. Slightly more structure could aid scanning, but nothing is wasted.
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 6 optional params, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, this tool needs substantial description to be callable correctly. The description says nothing about pagination via cursor, the meaning of term, how the response is shaped, or how supply contracts relate to lending positions operationally. It is minimal enough that an agent would likely mis-infer parameter semantics.
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% with 6 undocumented parameters (term, limit, cursor, orderId, supplyId, supplyCurrency), and the description explains none of them. The description does not compensate for the schema gap at all — an agent cannot know what 'term' means, how 'cursor' pagination works, or which IDs are required. This is a significant gap for a 6-parameter tool.
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 ('Query'), a specific resource ('active supply contracts'), and clarifies the domain with '(lending positions)'. The 'supply' vs 'borrow' distinction separates it from siblings like getCryptoLoanFixedBorrowContractInfo, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of which sibling tools are alternatives (e.g., getCryptoLoanFixedBorrowContractInfo or getCryptoLoanFixedSupplyOrderInfo) or what conditions would route an agent to them instead. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.