USERDATA

query_account

Execute a single read-only SELECT against account tables to retrieve persisted user data and preferences for research workflows.

Instructions

Runs one read-only SELECT on the account tables.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sql": "<sql>"
    },
    "name": "query_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sql`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavior burden and does disclose two real traits: read-only and single-statement execution. It says nothing about result-row limits, permissions/authentication, SQL dialect, error behavior, or what tables are actually reachable, leaving significant gaps for a raw SQL execution tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the read-only constraint is stated immediately. Its brevity edges toward under-specification for a SQL-execution tool rather than excess, so it is efficient but thin.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and there is only one required parameter, which keeps the burden low. Still missing for a query tool are table scope, dialect, and safety limits, which an agent needs to form a valid call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the bare 'sql' string parameter gets no help from the schema; the description partially compensates by implying a read-only SELECT against account tables. It adds no dialect, table-name, syntax, or example guidance, so an agent still has to guess what SQL is valid.

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 names a specific action (runs a single read-only SELECT) and a specific resource (the account tables), which separates it from pull_* and query_market siblings by data domain. It stops short of naming a sibling or defining what the 'account tables' comprise.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent knows to call it when it needs to read account data, and 'one read-only SELECT' sets a constraint of a single non-mutating statement. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over query_market or the pull_* family, and no exclusions.

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