Retrieve a single capital-flow event by its stable event ID to inspect unlock details for analysis or verification.
Fetch one UnlockFlowEvent by event_id from local illustrative seeds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | Stable event id, e.g. uf_20261005_ena_t30 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the data comes from 'local illustrative seeds,' implying a limited demo dataset and a read-only operation. It does not mention missing-ID behavior, return format, or whether the data is static, so some transparency gap remains.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, target, key, and data source efficiently, earning its place entirely.
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 single-parameter read operation, the description covers the purpose, the required identifier, and the data source. The absence of an output schema means return details are not spelled out, but the tool name and description make clear that an UnlockFlowEvent is returned; the only minor omissions are error behavior and explicit sibling guidance.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents event_id with a concrete example. The description only names the parameter without adding new semantic detail, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one UnlockFlowEvent'), and the lookup key ('by event_id'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling list_unlock_events, since it targets a single item rather than a collection.
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 use case is implied: use this tool when you have a specific event_id and need one event, while list_unlock_events is the likely alternative for fetching multiple events. However, the description never explicitly names this sibling or states when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.