Use to check Bull's track record: number of settled deals, total volume, open RFQs and the latest settled deals, read from the escrow contract. Public, no signature needed.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "bull_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the data source (the escrow contract) and the authorization profile (public, no signature needed), which are the two facts an agent most needs before calling. Rate limits, error behavior, and freshness of the 'latest' deals are not addressed.
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?
A single sentence with the verb and returned fields front-loaded, followed by one clause on data source and access model. No waste and nothing buried.
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 tool this covers what an agent needs: what it returns, where it reads from, and that no signature is required. Since no output schema exists, the enumerated fields serve as the return-value description, though exact shapes and units for volume are not specified.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly conveys that no inputs or filters are accepted, so results are unfiltered global stats.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (check Bull's track record) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: settled deal count, total volume, open RFQs, latest settled deals. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like bull_get_deal or bull_list_rfqs without opening a schema.
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?
Makes clear this is a read-only aggregate stats lookup and notes it is public with no signature needed, which tells the agent it can call it freely at the start of a workflow. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it, so it falls just below a full 5.
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.