Skip to main content
Glama

check_api_health

Maps to GET /health. Returns service availability. Use to confirm the API is responsive before attempting operations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description covers the basic behavior but does not detail the response format. However, for a simple health check, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with endpoint mapping and usage instruction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete and sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool maps to GET /health and returns service availability. It is distinct from sibling tools which deal with swaps and pools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use it to confirm the API is responsive before operations, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: pool analysis, health check, quotes (standard and clean), setup guide, chain/DEX info, LP position listing, pool search, and zap in/out. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the verb prefixes are not uniform: some use 'get_*', others use 'analyze_', 'check_', 'list_', 'search_', 'zap_'. While still clear, a more consistent prefix pattern would improve predictability.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools cover the full scope of a DeFi liquidity management server: discovery, analysis, quoting, entry/exit, and auxiliary info. No redundant tools, and the count is well within the optimal range.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all essential operations for liquidity management: pool search and analysis, swap quotes, position listing, and single-transaction zap in/out. No critical gaps are evident.

Resources