loot_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the type of information returned (chain id, wallet balance, etc.) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation. The term 'status' strongly implies no mutations, but not as clearly as 'read-only' or 'does not modify state.' It also omits any mention of authentication, rate limits, or potential failures.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Server health and configuration') followed by a concise list of included data points. It avoids fluff and clearly communicates scope, though the enumerated list reads a bit like a bulleted list without formatting, which could be slightly more scannable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively outlines the return content (chain id, RPC check, wallet info, mode, API reachability, contract addresses). It covers the essential fields an agent would need to interpret the tool's output. However, it does not describe the structure (e.g., is it a JSON object with those keys?), nor does it mention error conditions or return codes, which are minor gaps for a status tool.

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 there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline rule for tools with 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description actually goes beyond the schema by listing the specific categories of information returned, adding value despite having no parameters.

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 states it covers 'Server health and configuration' and enumerates specific data points (chain id, RPC check, wallet balance, armed/read-only mode, API reachability, contract addresses). This is a precise verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all actions (buy, sell, claim, etc.) rather than status checks.

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 tool's purpose as a status/health check is clear, and sibling names (loot_buy, loot_sell, etc.) suggest it's for inspection rather than mutation. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus other tools, nor does it mention any preconditions or timing (e.g., 'run before transactions'). Usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.

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