Get the authenticated user's Vault state.
The Vault is a regime-aware allocator: in strong markets most capital
holds BTC/ETH/SOL; when the market weakens it rotates into savings and
funding arbitrage. Returns current regime, allocation weights, and
sleeve holdings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the Vault's rotation behavior and states that the tool returns current regime, allocation weights, and sleeve holdings. The verbs 'Get' and 'Returns' imply a non-mutating read operation, and no side effects are suggested, though an explicit read-only note would have been more transparent.
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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation, the second explains the Vault concept needed to understand 'regime-aware,' and the third lists the returned fields. 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only status endpoint, the description is complete: it identifies the subject (authenticated user's Vault), explains the domain concept, and enumerates the output. An output schema exists, so return details are covered structurally, and no critical operational guidance is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds context about the Vault's behavior but does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the authenticated user's Vault state.' It explains what the Vault is (a regime-aware allocator) and enumerates the return values (current regime, allocation weights, sleeve holdings), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_vault_history or get_market_regime.
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 clearly establishes use for checking current Vault status by emphasizing 'current regime' and 'Vault state.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the temporal framing makes the intended context unambiguous.
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.