Scan current freshness/staleness across many active feeds, filterable by provider, symbol, or category. Use this to find feeds needing attention right now. For a single feed by UUID use get_feed_health; for a dated ecosystem-wide report use get_oracle_health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Filter by asset symbol | |
| category | No | Filter by feed category | |
| provider | No | Filter by oracle provider |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that results are a point-in-time snapshot ('current') across many feeds, which is useful context beyond the schema, but it says nothing about auth/permissions, pagination, or whether stale feeds are flagged versus filtered out. Adequate but with real gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then usage, then the sibling disambiguation. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema.
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 read-only filtered list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, filters, and routing. The only omission is any hint at what the response contains (freshness values, staleness thresholds, counts), which an agent might want but can discover on call.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and all three filters (symbol, category, provider) are documented with enum values in the schema itself. The description only restates the filterable dimensions without adding format or combination semantics, so it earns the baseline rather than more.
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?
States a specific verb (scan) and resource (current freshness/staleness) with explicit scope: 'across many active feeds'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_feed_health (single feed) and get_oracle_health (dated ecosystem report), so an agent can route without opening schemas.
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?
Gives an explicit when-to-use ('to find feeds needing attention right now') plus two named alternatives with the conditions that select them. The decision boundary between this tool and the two get_* health tools is fully spelled out.
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.