Check backend health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that endpoints are undocumented and volatile, which is useful behavioral context for reliability expectations. However, it fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., network calls, rate limits, or whether it is strictly read-only). For a health-probe tool this is a notable gap, but the description at least sets expectations about endpoint instability.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Probe each backend and report which are answering'), followed by a single usage directive. Every word earns its place, making it extremely efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose and usage well. The only missing piece is an explicit description of the output format (e.g., a list of backend names with statuses), though 'report which are answering' implies this. It could also mention whether the tool returns success/failure codes, but overall it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 zero parameters, so the description naturally has no parameter details to add. The schema is empty and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no compensation is needed for undocumented 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 states a specific action ('Probe each backend') and a clear outcome ('report which are answering'), which is unique among siblings that focus on search, quotes, history, and indicators. It clearly identifies the resource (backends) and the diagnostic intent, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('Use this when a tool starts failing') and adds crucial context ('these TradingView endpoints are undocumented and change without notice'). This gives an agent a clear trigger condition and expectation, effectively distinguishing it from routine data-access tools. No alternative is named, but the condition alone is sufficient guidance.

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