status

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds crucial nuance: `live: true` rotates the token family and ends the Stockbit website session, `failing` means rejected despite being unexpired, tokens are never returned, and `health` costs no requests. There is no contradiction because the default path is read-only and the side-effect condition is explicitly called out.

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 long, but each section earns its place: when to call, what gets reported, health semantics, the live-true warning, and the market-block limitation. It is front-loaded with the most important usage guidance. Slight redundancy around the `health`-versus-`live` distinction keeps it from being perfectly tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returned concepts like `health`, `live`, `nextStep`, and the `market` block. It also discloses side effects and routing to `market_session`. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description substantially extends the single parameter's meaning by explaining that `live: true` proves the token at the cost of rotating the refresh-token family and ending the website session, while `health` answers the same question for free. This is exactly the kind of behavioral parameter context an agent needs.

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 opening sentence frames it as a server-health and next-command lookup, and the body enumerates a distinct output set: version/node, stored sessions, market-data token health, trading mode, IDX clock, and nextStep. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling account and trading tools even though it is named generically.

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 says to call this first whenever anything looks wrong and after login to confirm the session. It also gives clear alternatives: use `health` instead of `live: true`, only pass `live: true` when the user explicitly asks, and call `market_session` for public-holiday modeling.

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