Fetches auto-deleveraging (ADL) events that affected a specified account; requires API credentials. Deprecated—use fetch_adl_history instead.
Deprecated: use fetch_adl_history. Get the auto-deleveraging (ADL) events that touched a given account. Requires API credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of records to return (max 1000, default 100). | |
| address | Yes | Account address (0x-prefixed hex). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum number of records to return."New value: +"Maximum number of records to return (max 1000, default 100)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the auth requirement, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about return contents, pagination behavior, or rate limits for an account-scoped history endpoint.
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?
Three short sentences with the deprecation warning front-loaded, followed by purpose and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is padding.
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 simple deprecated read tool with two well-documented params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and auth. The only remaining gap is the shape of returned ADL event data, which is minor given the limited parameter surface.
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%, with both `limit` (max 1000, default 100) and `address` fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, range, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already 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 a specific verb+resource: retrieving auto-deleveraging (ADL) events for a given account, and explicitly identifies itself as deprecated in favor of the sibling `fetch_adl_history`. An agent can distinguish this from the many fetch_* siblings without opening the schema.
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?
Gives clear routing guidance ('Deprecated: use fetch_adl_history') plus a prerequisite ('Requires API credentials'). It does not state the condition under which this legacy variant should still be used, which keeps it short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.