Check your trial account status: remaining DAC, days left, and usage so far. Trial gives you 500 DAC for 30 days to explore freely.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only action, but the description does not explicitly state it has no side effects, requires authentication (beyond the param), or whether it might fail if no trial is active. It adds minimal context beyond the purpose, missing details like rate limits or data volatility.
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 elegant and efficient: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and the details returned; the second adds valuable contextual information about the trial allowance (500 DAC for 30 days). Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous wording.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations) the description is essentially complete. It conveys what the tool does and what it returns in terms of content (remaining DAC, days left, usage). The only slight gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what happens if the trial has ended or is not active, but this is a minor omission for a low-complexity tool.
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 already provides full coverage (100%) with a description for the single 'auth_token' parameter: 'Your DA agent auth token'. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not reinforce or supplement the schema's 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 purpose: 'Check your trial account status: remaining DAC, days left, and usage so far.' This specifies the verb (check), the resource (trial account status), and enumerates the exact details provided. It distinguishes from siblings like get_dac_balance (which likely shows overall DAC) and get_agent_profile (profile info), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage when you want to know about a trial, but it does not explicitly tell when to use it versus alternatives like run_sdac_trial or get_dac_balance. It provides context ('Trial gives you 500 DAC for 30 days') but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.