Check active DCA schedules to view chunk progress (completed, pending, failed) and the next execution time.
Check your DCA schedule status. Shows all active DCA schedules (up to 10) with chunk progress (completed, pending, failed) and next execution time.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the returned data: active DCA schedules, a cap of 10, chunk progress states, and next execution time. "Check" and "Shows" imply a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state auth or whether only the caller's schedules are 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 core description is front-loaded, specific, and brief. The trailing tip about earning_opportunities is not necessary for selecting or invoking this tool, which slightly reduces conciseness.
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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides enough detail about what will be returned and the 10-schedule limit. It would be stronger if it explicitly confirmed read-only behavior and prerequisite wallet connection.
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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation gaps.
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 clear verb-resource pair, "Check your DCA schedule status," and adds concrete output detail about active schedules, chunk progress, and next execution time. It does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling pillar_direct_dca_status, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives such as pillar_direct_dca_status. The tip to call earning_opportunities is a related next action, not usage guidance for this status tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.