Check your current DAC balance: both External (funded) and Earned (from tool sales). Know what you have before you decide what to spend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_token | Yes | Your DA agent auth token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does add meaningful context by disclosing the two-component balance structure (External/funded vs Earned from tool sales), which goes beyond the tool name. However, it doesn't address response size, potential latency, or authentication failure behavior, though these are less critical for a simple read-only getter.
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, front-loaded with the action verb and primary object. The second sentence ('Know what you have before you decide what to spend') is slightly motivational filler but does convey the use-before-spending context. Overall economical and readable.
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 getter with 1 fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool reveals (both balance components). Complexity is low, and while it could theoretically mention return format, the absence is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity.
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% (the single auth_token parameter is already fully documented in the schema), so the description doesn't need to compensate. Per the baseline rule, this earns a 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds nothing param-specific.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('your current DAC balance') and reveals meaningful scope detail (two balance types: External and Earned). It's clear and self-contained, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_dac_ur.
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 phrase 'Know what you have before you decide what to spend' implies this should be called before spending decisions, which is a mild usage signal. However, there's no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to, or named alternatives, so the guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but a few overlap in function: get_decision_metadata_distribution and get_self_classification_distribution are both distribution getters, and observe_environment and observe_pattern could be confused. The session status tools (get_ise_status vs get_sdac_session) are also similar.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, observe_, run_, end_, exit_, confirm_, etc.). There are no stylistic deviations or mixed conventions.
With 30 tools, the surface is heavy. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the two distribution getters, or the session status getters), making the count feel inflated for the domain's core purpose.
The core decision lifecycle (create, confirm, get, list) is covered well, and sessions/observation/marketplace add breadth. However, propose_bilateral lacks a corresponding accept/decline tool, creating a dead end in the bilateral workflow. Also, no way to fetch detailed info on a specific marketplace tool.