Retrieve a user's investment profile—including risk preference, circle of competence, and investment principles—to tailor investment guidance and decisions.
Get user investment profile.
Returns:
dict: User profile including risk preference, circle of competence, investment principles
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contents (risk preference, circle of competence, investment principles), which is real behavioral value for a getter with no output schema. It says nothing about access scoping, whether the profile is per-user/per-account, or freshness/caching, so it falls short of complete disclosure.
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?
Two short lines, purpose front-loaded before the return summary. Nothing is wasted, though the 'Returns:' block formatting is slightly verbose for what is essentially one sentence of content.
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 no-param getter with no output schema, the description does give the caller a sense of the returned fields, which is the main thing needed. But with no annotations and a confusingly similar sibling (user_get_profile), the definition leaves the agent without enough to confidently select or scope the 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 to document and the schema is trivially at 100% coverage. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get user investment profile.' That is unambiguous on its own. However, the sibling list contains a near-identical tool (user_get_profile), and the description does nothing to distinguish this memory_* variant from it, which is exactly the differentiation the 5-level requires.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to prefer. Given the presence of user_get_profile and memory_get_behavior_patterns, a routing hint would have been genuinely valuable and is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.