health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a status check, that it confirms research-only mode, and that adapter data may be fixtures or live. This gives the agent an accurate model of what the tool does without overstating side effects.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The key noun phrase ('Liveness and adapter status') is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the specific checks without repeating the tool name or the schema.

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 health check with an output schema present, the description is complete: it identifies the purpose, the mode being validated, the adapters involved, and the fixture/live distinction. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool 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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter burden to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to add meaning to nonexistent parameters; the only additional value would be describing the output, which the output schema already covers.

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 names a specific resource ('liveness and adapter status') and uses a concrete verb ('confirms') to state what the tool verifies. It is clearly distinct from the data-returning sibling tools like get_quote and get_ohlcv, which fetch market data rather than report system health.

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 implies a diagnostic use case—checking whether the service is alive and whether adapters are returning data—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention any preconditions. The role is clear enough, but the guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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