Read the user's CTRL vault address, ETH + WETH balance, and active rules. Call this BEFORE ctrl_activate so you can tell the user how much they need to fund.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation and lists what is read, which is sufficient for a simple read. However, since no annotations are provided, the description could be more transparent about return format or error cases, but it covers the essential behavioral trait.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose and usage hint. It lacks details on return structure or error handling, but for a zero-parameter, read-only tool, it is largely complete.
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?
There are no parameters (0 params, baseline 4). The description adds meaning by detailing what the output includes, which is valuable beyond the empty schema.
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 reads the user's CTRL vault address, ETH + WETH balance, and active rules. It uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource, and the mention of its predecessor role ('before ctrl_activate') distinguishes it from siblings.
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 explicitly states to call this before ctrl_activate and explains why (to tell user funding needs). This provides clear context, though it doesn't include when not to use it or alternatives.
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 targets a distinct operation: vault activation, workflow creation, manual firing, catalog retrieval, log reading, and vault status. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities.
All tools follow a consistent 'ctrl_verb' pattern (e.g., ctrl_activate, ctrl_create_workflow), making it easy to infer functionality from the name.
6 tools cover the essential operations for a workflow automation server without being excessive or sparse. The scope is well-defined.
The set covers core workflows (create, activate, trigger, monitor) but lacks explicit update/delete for workflows or vaults. This is a minor gap that can be worked around.