Is the instrument operational right now?
Component-by-component status for all collectors and engines. Call this first if any reading looks stale or absent — a sensor being down changes what every other answer means.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by explaining that a sensor being down affects the meaning of every other answer, which is beyond a simple status report. It does not discuss side effects, but for a health check, read-only behavior is implied.
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 immediately engaging and front-loaded with a question, followed by a concise component-by-component explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and why it matters (downed sensor changes other answers), making it complete for an agent.
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 schema is empty. The description adds no parameter info, but with no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies.
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's purpose: checking if the instrument is operational right now, with component-by-component status for all collectors and engines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch specific data (e.g., get_block_tip, get_gamma_exposure).
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first if any reading looks stale or absent.' It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the directive is strong and contextually clear.
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.
Tools like get_convergence, get_directional_bias, and get_dashboard are related but clearly scoped: convergence checks sensor agreement, directional_bias gives the trade call, dashboard bundles everything. Mempool fees vs stats are distinct (rates vs pending tx). Some overlap exists between convergence/regime_current, but descriptions disambiguate well.
All tools follow a consistent get_verb_noun pattern (get_block_tip, get_funding_divergence, get_system_health). The only exception is query_db, which uses 'query' instead of 'get', but it still follows the verb_noun structure and same snake_case style. No mixed conventions.
15 tools is at the high end of the ideal range, but each serves a distinct function in a complex domain: sensor convergence, regime, funding, gamma, mempool, system health, audit. The Pro/free tier adds some apparent duplication (get_convergence vs get_directional_bias), but they address different questions.
The tool set covers the full workflow: convergence check, directional call, regime context, specialized indicators (funding, gamma, stablecoin flows, fee histogram), mempool data, system health, audit trail, and a queryable database. No obvious dead ends; public signal history and counters support verification.