pinnacle_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. The description implies a read-only operation and returns status, but it does not explicitly state that it is safe, has no side effects, or any rate limit information. For a simple status check, the disclosure is adequate but lacks explicit confirmation.

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 two lines, extremely concise and to the point. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides the return format. Every sentence is necessary; no wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it (e.g., before other pinnacle calls) and does not mention error handling or API response codes. For a simple status tool, it is nearly complete but could be slightly more helpful.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by detailing the return structure: {code, description, services:[{name, status}]}. With zero parameters, baseline is 4, and the description provides useful context beyond the empty schema.

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 the tool returns API system status (online/offline + per-service health). It distinctly identifies the resource (API system status) and verb (status check). Among siblings, there are many pinnacle tools for betting data and one similar status tool from Kalshi, but the tool name and description make it unique.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to check API health before making other calls, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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