Get Wealthville's live signal track record: per-action hit rates, IL-adjusted 7-day PnL, and recent resolved signals — misses included (the ledger is immutable at publish time). Use when asked whether Wealthville scores can be trusted, or for the system's recent performance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Window in days (default 30) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that misses are included and the ledger is immutable at publish time, providing valuable context beyond 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 key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return data and usage context. Could be slightly more explicit about output format, but adequate.
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% and already describes the 'days' parameter with min, max, and default. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 retrieves Wealthville's live signal track record, listing specific data (hit rates, PnL, resolved signals). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pool_score and get_signals_feed by focusing on performance metrics.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when asked whether Wealthville scores can be trusted, or for the system's recent performance.' While it doesn't state when not to use, the context is clear.
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: scoring a specific pool, retrieving signal feed, ranking top pools, and showing track record. No overlap exists between the tool functionalities.
All tool names follow the consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a noun phrase (pool_score, signals_feed, top_pools, track_record), maintaining a predictable verb_noun pattern.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused server providing liquidity pool scoring, signals, rankings, and performance history. No unnecessary tools and no missing essential ones for the core domain.
The tools cover the key operations: individual pool score, latest signals, top pools ranking, and track record. Minor gaps like historical pool scores or filtering capabilities exist, but the core workflow is supported.
