Price Service MCP

health_check

Verify the operational status of the cryptocurrency price data service to ensure real-time and historical price feeds from exchanges like Coinbase, Binance, and Kraken are functioning correctly.

Instructions

Check the health status of the price service

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about what 'health status' means, what the response format might be, whether this is a read-only operation, or any performance characteristics. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple health check tool and front-loads the essential information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a health check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'health status', what format the response takes, what values might indicate problems, or how this differs from other service monitoring approaches. The context signals show this is a simple tool, but the description doesn't provide enough operational guidance.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this absence.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Check') and target ('health status of the price service'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_price', which appears to be a different operation (fetching price data vs. checking service health).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose suggests it's for monitoring service health, there's no mention of when this check should be performed, what triggers its use, or how it differs from simply calling 'get_price' to test service availability.

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

Deploy Server