Check current runtime configuration and enabled safety gates without exposing credentials. Verify the active security state before executing market operations.
Return credential-safe runtime configuration and enabled safety gates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait – 'credential-safe' – signaling that the call does not leak sensitive informationable. It does not mention response shape or possible empty states, but for a read-only status probe the added context is sufficient.
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?
One compact sentence communicates the return content in under 12 words. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or schema.
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?
For a parameterless read-only status tool, the annotation set plus the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the call is safe, needs no arguments, and returns runtime configuration and enabled safety gates. Nothing essential is missing.
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 takes zero parametersessed and the schema fully documents an empty parameter set. With no parameters to explain, the description adds no further semantic burden; baseline 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource: credential-safe runtime configuration and enabled safety gates. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which target accounts, orders, candles, fees, and similar domain data.
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 intended use is implied by the tool name and description – call it to inspect runtime configuration and safety gates. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling getters, nor any context about environment state or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.