Estado de las cadenas

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the tool is live diagnostic (read-only), checking responses and latency. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, but the diagnostic nature implicitly suggests no side effects. A small gap exists in not confirming it only observes, but for a 0-param tool this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core action and then providing usage context. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 0 parameters, no output schema, and the diagnostic nature, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It implies the output will list chain statuses and latency, which is sufficient context for an agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning because there are none to describe. It mentions 'supported chains' but does not detail any input constraints, which is fine as there are none.

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's purpose: 'Diagnóstico en vivo: qué cadenas soportadas están respondiendo ahora y con qué latencia.' This specifies a concrete verb ('diagnose'), resource ('supported chains'), and scope ('live status, latency'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product or add_to_cart, which serve entirely different functions.

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 advises when to use the tool: 'Úsalo si otra tool falla, para distinguir un endpoint caído de un error de uso.' This provides clear guidance for the agent, stating that it is a diagnostic fallback to differentiate between a downed chain and a usage error.

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