get_node_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds critical behavioral context about data sourcing in hosted API environments. While it implies read-only behavior via the verb 'Get', it does not explicitly disclose safety characteristics or side effects.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality and specific return fields, while the second provides essential operational context.

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 presence of an output schema and zero input parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's scope by enumerating the specific status fields returned. It appropriately delegates return value details to the output schema, though it could benefit from an explicit read-only declaration given the lack of annotations.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. Per the calibration rules, this establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Bitcoin network status'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (chain, height, sync progress, disk usage, connections, version). This comprehensive field list effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_blockchain_info or get_network_info which return subsets of this 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 provides important contextual guidance about the hosted API mode ('reflects the API server's node'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_blockchain_info or get_network_info.

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