Check service health and exchange connectivity status. Returns status of Upbit, Bithumb, and Binance API connections.
š° Price: FREE (no x402 payment required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by specifying the exact exchanges covered and noting the tool is free (no x402 payment required). It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the added context is sufficient.
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 compact sentences front-load the action and scope. The price note is a single short clause with an emoji, adding useful info without bloat. No wasted words.
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, read-only health check with an output schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, which connections are checked, and cost. There are no missing inputs or behavioral gaps.
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 there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than 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 a specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource as 'service health and exchange connectivity status', naming concrete exchanges (Upbit, Bithumb, Binance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on market data, arbitrage, or news.
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 implies a health-check use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Its unique scope is obvious relative to siblings, but without direct guidance the agent must infer when to invoke it.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes (prices, alerts, news, health), but several overlap: get_kimchi_premium vs get_arbitrage_scanner both cover premium data, and get_kr_sentiment, get_market_read, and get_global_vs_korea_divergence_deep all provide AI analysis with different scopes, which could confuse an agent.
All tools follow a consistent get_<descriptive_noun> pattern in snake_case, with check_health as the only deviation, which is a conventional health-check exception. The naming is highly predictable.
With 17 tools, the server is on the heavy side per the calibration (16-25 feels heavy). While the domain is broad and each tool has a role, the existence of paired summary/deep variants adds redundancy that could be consolidated.
The tool set covers a comprehensive Korean crypto intelligence surface: prices, premiums, arbitrage, alerts, sentiment, market analysis, FX, news, and health. Minor gaps like a general Korean crypto news tool or historical data are not critical but prevent a perfect score.