get_platform_disclosureReturn Gogi's mandatory trading / MCP risk disclosure. Call this when connecting or before trading. User controls permissions; Gogi is not responsible for external agent actions; no investment advice; losses are the user's.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / descriptionPrevious value: -"Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields."New value: +"Structured result. Error responses include error and message."Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real content context beyond the annotations: the disclosure is mandatory, it concerns agent-action liability, and it explicitly disclaims investment advice. That tells an agent what it is retrieving and why it matters. It does not explain the unusual readOnlyHint=false on a getter, leaving a minor gap.
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?
Front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the trigger condition. The trailing liability clauses are dense and read more like document content than invocation guidance, but they are short and earn their place as disclosure substance.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, timing, and nature of the content. It could say whether the agent must surface the text to the user, which is the one operational detail left implicit.
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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. No parameter-related omissions exist.
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 ('Return') and a precisely named resource ('Gogi's mandatory trading / MCP risk disclosure'). No sibling tool in the list does anything similar, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.
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?
'Call this when connecting or before trading' gives explicit triggering conditions, which is more than most siblings provide. It stops short of stating when not to call or naming an alternative, but no plausible alternative exists for a disclosure endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.