Check CryptoGuard API health, version, and service status. No payment required. Use this to verify the service is running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No | Return detailed health info including uptime and version details (default: false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'No payment required' and specifies what is checked (health, version, status), providing useful context beyond the 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 concise with two short sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 one optional parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and constraints. Nothing essential is missing.
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 100% coverage, including a description of the 'verbose' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 checks CryptoGuard API health, version, and service status, with a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools that handle trade validation, token scanning, and searches.
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?
It explicitly says to use this to verify the service is running, providing clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives, but the health check is unique among siblings, so this is sufficient.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: validate_trade and validate_trade_plus both validate trades, while scan_token and rug_check are bundled into validate_trade's checks. This creates ambiguity about which tool to use for a given task, especially for agents trying to distinguish the premium versus standard validation flow.
All tool names share the 'cryptoguard_' prefix and snake_case, but the structure varies: some are verbs (search, scan_token, validate_trade), while others are nouns or adjective-noun combinations (health, rug_check, counterfactual_trade). The inconsistency in verb usage makes the set feel less predictable, though the prefix provides a unifying element.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range for a crypto risk assessment server. The count is reasonable, but the overlap between validate_trade and validate_trade_plus suggests one could arguably be consolidated, making the set slightly redundant.
The server covers the core domain well: health checking, token search, rug pull assessment, anomaly scanning, trade validation, and counterfactual analysis. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no batch processing or explicit market data endpoints) but the main workflows for trade validation and risk assessment are represented.