Check gateway health -- shows subsystem status (RPC, backend, CDP, facilitator), uptime, and flip count. Use to verify gateway is operational before attempting flips. Free -- no payment required. [pricing: {"cost":"0","currency":"USDC","type":"free"}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Free -- no payment required,' which is useful cost behavior. It also lists the return contents (subsystem status, uptime, flip count), indicating a read-only health check, though it does not explicitly state read-only or auth requirements.
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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the purpose, then usage, then cost. Every sentence provides value without unnecessary padding. The pricing JSON is an additional structured block and does not detract from readability.
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 simple health check tool with no params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output contents, a usage scenario, and cost. It does not specify the exact format of the status output, but this is likely acceptable for a health check.
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 0 parameters, so per the baseline rule, the score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% trivial coverage.
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 function: 'Check gateway health' and details what it shows (subsystem status, uptime, flip count). This distinguishes it from siblings like flipr_status and flipr_bridge_status by focusing specifically on gateway health with a specific subsystem list.
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 usage guidance: 'Use to verify gateway is operational before attempting flips.' This gives a clear context of when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives.
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 targets a distinct aspect of the Flipr ecosystem: game info, health/status, flipping action, pot/opportunity monitoring, agent stats, referral program, and withdrawal. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar-sounding ones like flipr_opportunity and flipr_pot are clearly differentiated by ROI analysis.
All tool names follow a consistent 'flipr_<noun>' snake_case pattern (e.g., flipr_agent_stats, flipr_flip). The naming is predictable and intuitive, making it easy for an agent to understand the hierarchy of operations.
With 18 tools, the server covers the full scope of a betting game with referral features. Each tool serves a clear role without bloat. The count feels well-scoped for the domain, neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The tool surface covers core gameplay (flip, health, game info), opportunity analysis (pot, opportunity, history, subscription), agent/referral management, and payout. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to retrieve an agent's own flip history beyond aggregated stats, but this does not hinder primary use cases.