ravn_healthLiveness check across every venue RAVN routes through — call before a swap if you want to know whether a route is degraded ahead of time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it checks every venue RAVN routes through and surfaces route degradation pre-swap. No contradictions with annotations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence: it names what the tool does first, then adds the practical call timing. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the title.
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 low-complexity tool with no parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what, when, and why. It does not describe the exact return shape, but that is a minor gap for a health-check endpoint.
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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Baseline 4 is appropriate since no parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Liveness check across every venue RAVN routes through." It also ties the tool to a concrete use case ("call before a swap"), which clearly separates it from swap execution or quoting tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling tool ravn_status.
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 gives clear usage context: call this before a swap to check whether a route is degraded ahead of time. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a simple no-parameter health probe this is sufficient guidance.
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.
Each tool maps to a clear lifecycle stage: health pre-checks routes, quote produces a token, execute turns it into a payload, btc_prepare_send handles a specific BTC deposit-to-PSBT step, and status polls the resulting swap. No two tools are likely to be confused.
The core tools use a clean ravn_<verb> pattern: quote, execute, status, health. The outlier is ravn_btc_prepare_send, which front-loads the asset and combines two actions, breaking the verb-first pattern slightly.
Five tools is a well-scoped size for a swap execution server. Each tool earns its place and covers a distinct part of the workflow without redundancy.
The core swap lifecycle is covered end-to-end: quote, execute, status, health, plus a BTC-specific helper for a common deposit flow. The main gap is the lack of an explicit tool for discovering supported chains/assets/venues, forcing agents to probe via ravn_quote.