Prediction-market venue freshness and health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'No API key required', 'Free public', and the important caveat that catalog presence does not prove live freshness. This enriches the agent's understanding of access and data caveats.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core function and fields; the second gives actionable guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

At zero parameters, with clear annotations and an output schema likely covering return fields, the description is complete. It covers why to use, when to use, and the key caveat about freshness, so an agent can correctly select and 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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies per the scoring guide. No parameter documentation is needed; the description focuses on output and usage instead.

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 identifies the tool as a per-venue ingest health endpoint across all CoinRithm sources, listing concrete fields (freshness tier, observed lag, stale/degraded reason, coverage counts, health timestamps). It differentiates from sibling tools like pm_data_sources and pm_data_overview by focusing on health/freshness status rather than source listing or general overview.

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 instructs users to check this tool before using a quote or claiming cross-venue coverage, providing a clear use-case trigger. It does not name alternative tools directly, but the context implies it is a prerequisite sanity check, which is sufficient guidance.

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