Check if the optional private analysis engine and plugins are connected. Verify setup status to ensure advanced features are available for market evaluation and bet settlement.
Report whether the optional private analysis engine and private plugins are wired up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'reports' status, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention safety, side effects, error conditions, or required setup. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent to infer 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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown here) and no parameters, so the description only needs to convey what the tool does. It does that clearly. It does not mention potential nuances like what happens if components are not configured, but the output schema likely covers return details. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple status check.
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 input schema is empty and the description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, there is nothing to describe; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Report whether' a specific subject ('optional private analysis engine and private plugins') are wired up. It is specific about the resource and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which deal with betting data and calculations.
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 a diagnostic usage—checking the wiring status of optional components—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no obvious siblings that perform a similar status check, the context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.