sa-ecosystem-node

DAO overview

dao_overview

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read live DAO treasury balances, decode Squads, list proposals, and verify data health in one read-only overview.

Instructions

Live treasury balances, Squads decode, a short proposal list, and data-health checks. A section that cannot be read is an error, not a made-up figure. Read-only.

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": "dao_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The line 'A section that cannot be read is an error, not a made-up figure' is a real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations: agents learn that failures surface as errors and are never silently degraded or synthesized. 'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint=true, so it earns no additional credit, and there is no talk of latency or partial-result handling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences with the payload enumerated first and the error contract second; nothing is padded. The first sentence is a noun-fragment list rather than a full clause, which is slightly clipped but still front-loaded and readable.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it names all four sections plus the error contract. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned payload, but for a zero-argument overview tool this is close to sufficient.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The prose correctly adds no parameter detail it doesn't need.

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 concrete payload — live treasury balances, Squads decode, a short proposal list, data-health checks — which tells an agent this is a composite dashboard rather than a single-resource query. It never explicitly contrasts itself with treasury_balances, list_proposals, or data_health, though the word 'overview' plus 'short' implies an aggregate entry point.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the first call to make because it bundles several other tools' outputs, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over the granular siblings or when to skip it. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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