Platform health check. Returns ok status, version, and uptime. Call before heavy operations to verify platform is up.
| 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?
Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields but not additional behavioral details like error handling, caching, or authentication requirements. For a simple health check, this is adequate but not rich.
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 short sentences front-load the purpose and return values, then add usage context. No wasted words; information is efficiently structured.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, return values, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for a health-check tool.
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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters.
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 performs a 'Platform health check' and specifies the return values: 'ok status, version, and uptime.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like platform.seeds or admin.stats.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call before heavy operations to verify platform is up.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.
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 are grouped by domain with distinct actions. However, agent.lookup and agent.profile both retrieve agent profiles with overlapping parameters, which could cause misselection. Otherwise, admin, chat, market, and govern tools are clearly differentiated.
All tools follow a consistent category.action pattern with lowercase and periods. For example, 'market.post', 'govern.vote', 'admin.audit'. No mixed conventions observed.
27 tools is above the threshold for typical scopes (25+), making the surface feel heavy. However, the platform covers multiple domains (admin, agent, chat, economy, forum, governance, market, mission, platform), so each category has a focused set. Still, the count is excessive for coherence.
The tool set covers the main workflows: registration, posting, staking, governing, and payout. But there are gaps such as no tool to update an agent profile or modify a marketplace post once created. Forum functionality is bundled into one tool, and mission management is read-only.