Prediction-market venue freshness and health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the endpoint is free, public, and requires no API key, and it clarifies the semantics of 'freshness' relative to a quote. Return format is left to the output schema, which is appropriate.

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?

Three sentences that front-load the resource and scope before the usage warning. Each sentence carries information, though the final 'No API key required' is a minor add-on that could be merged. No padding or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool with an existing output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it reports, when to consult it, and its auth profile. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. No description content is needed here and none is missing.

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?

States a specific resource (per-venue ingest health) and enumerates the outputs (freshness tier, observed lag, stale/degraded reason, coverage counts, health timestamps) with the scope 'all CoinRithm sources'. It distinguishes itself from the catalogue concept (pm_data_sources) by warning that catalogue presence alone doesn't guarantee live freshness, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Check this before using a quote or claiming cross-venue coverage.' That is actionable when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of the top band.

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