Explain what a Philidor risk score means, including the tier (Prime/Core/Edge), how it is calculated, and what the thresholds are.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | Risk score (0-10) to explain |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool provides an explanation including tier, calculation, and thresholds, with no hidden side effects. It could be more explicit about being read-only, but the behavior is clearly non-mutating and straightforward.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the key aspects it covers.
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 the simple one-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It details what the explanation will include, though it does not specify the return format (e.g., text or object), which could be inferred from the tool's nature.
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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'score' with a clear description ('Risk score (0-10) to explain'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which justifies the baseline score of 3.
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's function: explaining what a Philidor risk score means, covering the tier, calculation, and thresholds. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vault_risk_breakdown, which likely focuses on a specific vault's breakdown.
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 when an agent needs to understand the risk score system rather than retrieve data about specific vaults. It clearly indicates the context but does not explicitly mention 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.
Most tools target a specific resource and action, but vault discovery/filtering overlaps slightly between search_vaults and find_safest_vaults, and get_market/list_markets could confuse agents. The descriptions include explicit disambiguation notes, which mitigates most misselection risk.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_, list_, search_, compare_, explain_, find_. The consistency makes the tool surface predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the server's broad but focused purpose: vault analytics, market data, risk breakdowns, and ecosystem lookups. No tool feels redundant or purely decorative.
The read-only analytics domain is well covered: vault lookup, search, comparison, risk breakdown, incidents, market overview, market events, protocol info, and curator info are all present. The only notable gap is the lack of direct discovery/list endpoints for protocols and curators, though vaults can often be used as an entry point.
