List all vaults that had a recent critical incident (last 365 days). Critical = severity Critical or incident_severity major. Results are sorted by TVL descending, then by time since event ascending (most recent first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful details: the 365-day window, the definition of 'critical', and the sorting logic (TVL descending, then recency). It does not mention whether a vault with multiple incidents appears once or the exact return structure, but it is transparent about the core filtering and ordering behavior.
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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds necessary criteria and sorting. Each word 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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is listed, the incident criteria, and the ordering. It does not specify the fields included in each vault object, but given the simplicity and familiarity of vault-related tools, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide on invocation.
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 input schema has no parameters, so the description has nothing to add beyond the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output behavior instead.
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: listing vaults that experienced a critical incident within the last 365 days. It also precisely defines what qualifies as 'critical' (severity Critical or incident_severity major) and specifies the sorting order, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like search_vaults or find_safest_vaults.
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 conveys a clear usage context: use this when you need a list of vaults with recent critical incidents. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used, falling short of providing full comparative guidance.
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.
