get_poolFetch the live staking-pool emissions snapshot to see accrued pool and house revenue, fee-split shares, vault total weight, and undistributed rewards.
Fetch the live staking-pool / emissions snapshot (/api/pool): accrued pool and house revenue, the fee split shares, and the vault's total weight and undistributed rewards.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' plus 'live snapshot' implies a read-only, current-state retrieval and lists the data returned, which is useful context, but it says nothing about permissions, caching/refresh semantics, or rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the endpoint and the returned fields, no filler or restatement of the title. Every clause adds information.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned data (accrued pool/house revenue, fee split shares, vault weight, undistributed rewards). It omits any response-shape or freshness detail, but that gap is minor at this complexity.
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 baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, but none is needed.
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?
Specific verb (Fetch) plus a clearly bounded resource (the live staking-pool / emissions snapshot at /api/pool), with the returned facets enumerated. It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_project_info or get_collection_stats, and the endpoint path pins it to one distinct data source.
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 call this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist for pool/emissions data. The live-only nature is hinted at by 'live snapshot', but the agent must infer all usage conditions from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.