Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RiskPilot

RiskPilot

by dushaorighthere
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

riskpilot_policy

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read immutable risk limits and the paper-only execution boundary to assess whether proposed crypto trades are permissible under deterministic risk rules.

Instructions

Read immutable risk limits and the paper-only execution boundary.

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": "riskpilot_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context with 'immutable' and 'paper-only execution boundary,' reinforcing that this tool only reads policy and does not affect live execution. This is consistent with the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes only informative phrases. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a parameterless read-only tool with strong annotations, the description adequately identifies what is returned at a high level: risk limits and the execution boundary. It does not describe the exact output structure, and no output schema exists, but the scope is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to document parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden to compensate for.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and identifies two concrete resources: immutable risk limits and the paper-only execution boundary. This clearly distinguishes the tool as a policy accessor compared to the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name those siblings or the conditions for choosing among them.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or mention of alternatives. The phrasing implies this is the tool for reading risk policy data, but an agent receives no direct rule for choosing between riskpilot_policy and the siblings riskpilot_analyze or riskpilot_audit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools