get_status

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description proactively discloses that the tool 'reveals no secrets' and is 'safe to call from any client,' which is valuable behavioral transparency for a read-only diagnostic tool. It does not cover potential rate limits or response size, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 and well-structured, using bullet points to list the specific information returned. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description completely covers what the tool returns and why it should be used. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does and when 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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema provides full coverage (100%). The description adds value by detailing what the response contains (tier, limits, fees), going beyond the schema to set expectations for the agent.

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 provides server diagnostics including current mode, safety policy, and integrator attribution. It uses specific verbs and resources, and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_market or get_ticker by focusing on server state rather than market data.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: to verify tier, safety limits, and integrator attribution. It also directly states 'Anyone curious about fees should call this tool — it's the authoritative answer,' providing clear guidance and an alternative to other fee-related queries.

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