Retrieves current yield hunting status, including active state, configuration, run statistics, recent activity logs, and current Zest position.
Get current yield hunter status.
Shows:
Whether yield hunting is active
Current configuration
Statistics (checks run, deposits made)
Recent activity logs
Current Zest position
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, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates what is reported (active flag, configuration, statistics, activity logs, Zest position), which implies a read-only, side-effect-free call, but it never states that explicitly or covers auth/prerequisite conditions.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the bulleted list of returned content is scannable. The closing tip is marginally useful rather than essential, so it is not maximally tight but is far from padded.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by naming the five categories of status information. Only finer detail (formats, whether configuration is raw or summarized) is missing, which is minor for a diagnostic status call.
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 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema and description are consistent on this point.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get current yield hunter status") and enumerates the five content areas returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as yield_dashboard_overview or yield_dashboard_positions, leaving that differentiation to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied: as a zero-parameter status read, an agent can reasonably infer it belongs before yield_hunter_start/stop/configure, but the description never says so. The only explicit guidance is a cross-reference to earning_opportunities, which points to a follow-up action rather than a when-to-use-this-vs-alternative decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.