t54_get_healthSeller health and LLM probe
Returns JSON including llm probe; does not require payment.
HTTP GET /health (operationId getHealth). Paid routes may return HTTP 402 until the x402 broker settles on the configured rail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds useful context: the HTTP method, the free nature of the route, and the behavior of paid routes (402). It does not contradict annotations and provides enough extra detail to understand what the tool does beyond the structured fields.
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 three sentences long with no fluff: it states the title, return type, and key behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value (purpose, free status, HTTP method/path, 402 warning), making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.
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 health-check tool with no input schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: endpoint, HTTP method, return type, and payment requirements. It does not detail the exact structure of the health response, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most contexts.
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 has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value and endpoint rather than parameters.
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 clearly states the tool returns JSON including an `llm` probe and specifies the HTTP GET `/health` endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like t54_hello_ping by explicitly mentioning the LLM probe and the HTTP path, making the tool's specific function unambiguous.
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 description provides contextual guidance by noting that the route 'does not require payment' and that paid routes may return HTTP 402 until the broker settles, implying this is a low-cost health check. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like t54_hello_ping or list operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools split into contract security (audit, monitor, triage) and marketplace API (t54_*) categories, each with distinct purposes. However, t54_x402_request is a generic executor that could overlap with specific t54_* tools, though the description advises preferring per-operation tools when available. Overall, most tools are clearly differentiated.
Two naming conventions exist: contract_* (verb_noun, snake_case) and t54_* (prefix with varying patterns like t54_get_health, t54_hello_ping, t54_agent_commerce_data). The lack of a unified prefix or consistent verb/noun ordering across all tools lowers consistency significantly.
With 12 tools, the server covers both contract security and marketplace operations without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a distinct role, and the count is appropriate for a specialized marketplace with auxiliary security features.
The contract tools provide auditing, monitoring, and triage—core lifecycle coverage. The marketplace tools include health, listing, and specific data endpoints. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no unsubscribe for monitoring, no user account management), but the overall surface is well-matched to the server's stated purpose.