Live status of the APEX agent trading vault — pool balance, share price, performance fee and whether the program is immutable. Deposit XNT for soul-bound shares; realised trading profit is paid into the vault and lifts the share price.
| 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 burden. It explains the vault mechanics (deposit XNT, profit lifting share price) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, safe to call, or any side effects. For a status tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive; it lacks explicit statements about immutability or side effects beyond the data itself.
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 front-loads the key status fields, and the second adds explanatory context about how the vault works. Every 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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description lists the primary data points returned (pool balance, share price, performance fee, immutability). It also explains the deposit and profit mechanics. It may not enumerate every possible field, but it covers the essential information an agent needs to understand what to expect. A 4 is appropriate as it is mostly complete but could explicitly mention units or additional fields.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. No parameter information is missing.
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 provides live status of the APEX agent trading vault, listing specific data points (pool balance, share price, performance fee, immutability). It distinguishes itself as a status tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like vault_heartbeat. The verb 'status' and resource are specific.
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 by describing what it returns, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With sibling tools like vault_heartbeat and other status tools, an agent might need more direction on when to choose this tool over others. The context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.