get_syri_statusFree. Reports whether the service is healthy, which network it settles on, how many venues are scored, and how old the data is. Useful before depending on a score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure weight. It adds the cost trait ('Free') and specifies the exact data points reported, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not describe response format or failure behavior, but for a simple status call the listed outputs cover the core behavior.
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 sentences with no waste: the first packs in all output facts, and the second adds a targeted use-case hint. The leading 'Free' is brief and useful, and nothing is redundant with the schema.
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 status tool, the description adequately covers what the tool reports and when to use it. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by enumerating the reported fields, though exact response shape and possible network values remain unspecified.
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 schema has zero parameters and 100% vacuous coverage, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
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?
Description uses an active verb ('Reports') and names exactly what the tool returns: health, settlement network, number of scored venues, and data age. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings get_syri_score and list_syri_venues, which return scores and venue lists.
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 phrase 'Useful before depending on a score' gives a clear, concrete use case tied directly to the sibling get_syri_score. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.