trades_runtime_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states 'Read-only' and 'Does not increment counters,' which are important side-effect guarantees. However, it does not clarify what 'health' means, what the tool checks, or what the response contains.

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 very short and contains no filler, which is appropriate for a parameterless health check. However, the fragmented phrasing 'Trades-Runtime giveaway health' is awkward and could be clearer.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter information to lean on, so the description must explain what the tool returns or what 'health' means. It does not, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's actual behavior and result.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema already fully documents the parameter surface.

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 says 'Trades-Runtime giveaway health' but lacks an explicit verb or action, so it does not clearly state what the tool does. It mostly restates the tool name and does not distinguish itself from siblings like trades_runtime_stats or trades_runtime_skill.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The only context is 'Read-only' and 'Does not increment counters,' which describe behavior rather than usage conditions.

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