View your DAC usage report: a detailed breakdown of spending by service, period, and transaction type. Useful for budgeting and trajectory analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (ISO 8601) | |
| from | No | Start date (ISO 8601) | |
| auth_token | Yes | Your DA agent auth token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the report is a 'detailed breakdown' and 'useful for budgeting', but it does not specify whether the report includes real-time data, historical aggregation, or any limitations (e.g., date range constraints, data availability). It also doesn't mention authentication requirements beyond the auth_token parameter, which is expected.
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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then add usage value. No wasted words, but it could have included a bit more behavioral detail in the same length, hence not a 5.
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?
The tool is relatively simple (3 params, no output schema). The description covers the purpose and usage, but lacks behavioral context like data update frequency, potential volume of data, or any response format hints. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is justified; it's adequate but could elaborate on what the report does not include (e.g., real-time vs. settled data).
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., to/from as ISO 8601 dates). The description adds the context of 'spending by service, period, and transaction type', which implies the date range is used for filtering but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'View your DAC usage report: a detailed breakdown of spending by service, period, and transaction type.' It uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('DAC usage report') and distinguishes it from related tools like get_dac_balance, implying the report is broader than just balance.
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 explains the usage context: 'Useful for budgeting and trajectory analysis.' This gives a clear indication of when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the tool's specificity, the context is sufficient for most cases.
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.