mv_check_ibt_health

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: what checks are performed, verdict types (HEALTHY/CAUTION/WARNING), limitations (rate trajectory, governance, transient imbalance), and mode-specific behaviors. It surfaces competing explanations for pool imbalances.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, checks, verdict, limitations, modes). It is concise for the amount of information provided, though slightly lengthy. Every sentence adds value.

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, the description adequately describes return value (verdict + per-check details) and limitations. It covers modes, alternatives, and edge cases (e.g., which address takes priority). Could mention error handling but not required.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the two modes, fallback behavior, and that pt_address provides richer data. It clarifies the relationship between parameters and their usage context.

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 performs a multi-signal health assessment of the IBT underlying a PT pool, with specific checks and verdicts. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning alternative tools (spectra_get_pool_capacity, spectra_compare_yield).

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 explains two modes (Spectra vs Direct), when to use each, and priority rules. It also references alternatives for related tasks, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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