Get detailed gateway status including treasury address, subsystem latencies, and agent count. Use for deeper diagnostics beyond basic health checks. FREE — rate-limited only. [pricing: {"cost":"0","currency":"FREE","type":"free","network":"eip155:8453"}]
| 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 full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'FREE — rate-limited only', adding cost/rate-limit context. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't explicitly state whether there are side effects or what the response format is. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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: two sentences that state purpose and usage, followed by pricing metadata. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The appended pricing JSON is a bit clunky but not overly verbose, making the overall length appropriate.
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 no output schema, the description provides a good list of what the status includes (treasury address, latencies, agent count) and notes rate limiting. It lacks explicit return format details, but for a simple read-only status tool, the description covers the essential context for an agent to decide to invoke it.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameters to describe. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. No additional semantics are required.
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 states 'Get detailed gateway status' with specific content fields (treasury address, subsystem latencies, agent count), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as 'beyond basic health checks', which clearly differentiates it from flipr_health.
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 clear usage guidance: 'Use for deeper diagnostics beyond basic health checks.' This implies when to use the tool (when more detail is needed) and contrasts with basic health checks, likely referring to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly name the alternative but gives sufficient context.
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.