Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@dfm-fi/agent

@dfm-fi/agent

Official
by DFM-Finance
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

XP

xp_status
Read-only

Retrieves a user's total XP and XP breakdown by deposit, launch, profile, and referral, plus the top of the XP leaderboard.

Instructions

The user's XP (total and by kind: deposit, launch, profile, referral) and the top of the XP leaderboard.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "xp_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1967

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content scope (total plus four XP kinds, and the leaderboard) and hints the leaderboard is truncated to its 'top', but says nothing about auth requirements, whether the leaderboard is global or personal, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and the breakdown parenthetically scoped. No filler, no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description does the essential job of stating what content is returned. The only real gap is that the 'top of the leaderboard' scope is left undefined.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. No parameter confusion is possible.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific resource (the user's XP) and enumerates the breakdown (deposit, launch, profile, referral) plus the leaderboard, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. The verb is implicit rather than stated, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the resource is unique enough among the vault/wallet/trading tools to avoid confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or related tools. An agent must infer that this is the way to check XP, with no routing help at all.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools