Get WETH and USDC locked balance of a Gitbank vault on Base mainnet. Returns vault address and per-token balances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| github_username | Yes | GitHub username of the vault owner |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations: it specifies the network (Base mainnet) and the tokens (WETH, USDC), and mentions return structure (vault address and per-token balances). It does not contradict annotations.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and key details. Every sentence contributes value.
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 read tool with one parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is returned (vault address and per-token balances) and the network context. No additional information seems necessary.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter github_username is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action 'Get', the resource 'locked balance of a Gitbank vault', and specifics: tokens (WETH, USDC) and network (Base mainnet). It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with repos, stocks, transactions, etc.
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 for retrieving vault balances but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stock_price or get_transactions. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: informational gets/lists, action-oriented requests with confirm_code, and a status checker. No two tools overlap in function; e.g., get_stock_price vs get_rwa_portfolio differentiate price vs holdings.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for retrieval, list_ for enumeration, request_ for actions requiring authorization, and check_ for status. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
16 tools cover the full scope of Gitbank's functionality—viewing balances, portfolios, prices, transactions, and initiating deposits, withdrawals, swaps, stock trades, bounty assignments, and token launches. The count is well-proportioned for a complex financial/project management server.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for querying and initiating actions, but lacks a tool to cancel pending requests or to directly confirm actions (confirmation happens externally via GitHub). Minor gap, but core workflows are supported.
