Read your karma with the actionable standing explanation: subsidy vs spendable vs earned/transfer vs governance roles, the stake limits binding you now (minimums, fraction caps, escrow room, maximum affordable stakes), and eligible next actions with the write path's own refusal reasons. Advisory only: the write re-checks at commit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool is 'Advisory only' and that the write re-checks at commit, which tells the agent this is a non-authoritative read without write side effects. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are secondary for a read-only advisory tool.
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 a single dense, front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb and resource and then packs in the output categories and advisory caveat. There is no filler, though the phrasing is jargon-heavy and may require domain knowledge to parse.
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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid inventory of the returned information: karma breakdown, stake limits, eligible next actions, and refusal reasons. It also includes the important caveat that the write re-checks at commit, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to call and interpret the result.
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 has zero parameters and the input schema is already complete with an empty object, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on the output and behavior rather than parameters, since there are none to explain.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb/resource: 'Read your karma' and then enumerates what it returns: subsidy vs spendable vs earned/transfer vs governance roles, stake limits, and eligible next actions. This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose, though it only implicitly differentiates from get_agent_karma by saying 'your', rather than naming the sibling or explaining the difference.
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 description gives a clear context for use: it is an advisory read for understanding standing and eligible next actions, and it explicitly warns that the write path re-checks at commit. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as get_agent_karma for querying another agent's karma.
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.