arcane_system_status
Freshness of every public ARCANE key: push time, source as_of, and stale flag. Call this before treating any reading as current.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Freshness of every public ARCANE key: push time, source as_of, and stale flag. Call this before treating any reading as current.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields and implies a safe read operation, but lacks details on potential costs, caching, or interpretation of the stale flag.
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, front-loaded with output description and usage context. No extraneous content.
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 parameterless status tool, the description covers purpose and usage. Lacks explicit mention of output structure or staleness semantics, but is adequate for a simple tool.
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?
No parameters exist; baseline is 4 per rules. The description correctly adds no parameter info since none are 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns freshness information (push time, source as_of, stale flag) for public ARCANE keys. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the phrase 'Call this before treating any reading as current' implies a preparatory role.
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?
Provides explicit guidance to call this tool before treating any reading as current. Does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for basic use.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: overview, domain drill-down, system status, deltas, bilateral tracking, scenario tracking, trigger chains, data streams, score composition, and capabilities. No two tools overlap in function.
All tools use the consistent pattern 'arcane_<descriptive_noun>' in snake_case, making it easy to infer purpose from the name.
10 tools is appropriate for a geopolitical risk monitoring system covering overview, detailed breakdowns, data streams, status, and analysis. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers every aspect of the server's stated purpose: current overview, domain drill-down, scenario tracking, trigger chains, bilateral relations, data streams, system status, and score composition. No obvious gaps.