get_strategyFull detail for a single strategy: parameters, thesis, verdict, every check the gate ran, and each test run with its PRNG seed. The seed is the point — re-running with it reproduces the result exactly, so the claim is falsifiable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Strategy id. |
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 of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond a simple read by explaining the significance of the PRNG seed and the falsifiability aspect, which is valuable context about how the output can be reproduced. It clearly implies read-only behavior via 'Read' and 'get' and lists exactly what is returned.
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 quickly enumerates the output contents; the second explains the key behavioral nuance about the seed. Every word earns its place and is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly by listing all included components. It also conveys the unique value of the seed. Minor gaps like error handling or how to obtain an id are not covered, but for a simple read tool this is nearly complete.
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 the single parameter 'id' is minimally described as 'Strategy id.' The description does not add further semantics about the id format or how to obtain it, but since the schema already documents it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('single strategy') and enumerates the exact contents (parameters, thesis, verdict, gate checks, test runs with seeds). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_strategies or get_certification_gate by focusing on full detail for one strategy.
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 when to use this tool—when full detail for a single strategy is needed—and the sibling list_strategies suggests an alternative for summaries. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, so it is clear but lacks direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.