get_vaultGet the latest available VaultVision record for one vault ID, canonical slug, URL, or exact vault name, including risk, drawdown, entry, TVL, and deposit context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vault | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns the 'latest available' record and enumerating the data fields, which helps the agent set expectations. It does not discuss failure modes, rate limits, or caching, but given the annotations, this is sufficient and adds value beyond the structured metadata.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get the latest available VaultVision record') and follows with specific identifiers and data fields. Every word adds value, no fluff or redundancy.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema and safety annotations, this description is complete. It clarifies the input domain and output payload, and the output schema likely covers the return structure. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
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 provides no description for the 'vault' parameter (schema coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by enumerating the four acceptable identifier types (vault ID, canonical slug, URL, or exact vault name). This is critical for the agent to know what format to pass. It completely resolves ambiguity.
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 states a precise purpose: retrieving the latest VaultVision record for a single vault. It lists the accepted identifiers (vault ID, canonical slug, URL, or exact vault name) and the data fields included (risk, drawdown, entry, TVL, deposit context). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_vaults (which search) and rank_vaults (which rank).
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 fetching one vault's data and specifies the allowed input formats (ID, slug, URL, exact name). It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer the right context. A minor gap is the absence of explicit exclusions or conditions that would route to rank_vaults or compare_vaults.
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 target distinct actions and resources, but search_vaults and rank_vaults both return ordered vault lists, and fetch and get_vault can retrieve similar single-record data. The descriptions provide enough context to disambiguate in most cases.
Tool names generally follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (compare_vaults, get_vault, rank_vaults). Standalone verbs like fetch and search are minor deviations but remain readable and consistent in style.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a research-focused server. Each tool covers a distinct investigation workflow without redundant entries or excessive surface area.
The server covers discovery, retrieval, comparison, ranking, risk explanation, alerts, and HLP-specific metrics. Minor gaps exist, such as no historical/time-series tool, but core research workflows are fully supported.