ORDnet UTXO Index Health

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: every UTXO is individually verified by ORDnet's own BSV node, and WhatsOnChain is only a connectivity fallback. It also lists the exact return fields, which is useful since no output schema is provided.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, two sentences of context, and a return field list. Every sentence adds value, and the main verb is front-loaded.

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 tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, why the index matters, and what it returns. The lack of an output schema is fully compensated by the explicit return field enumeration.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter usage. Per rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description handles this perfectly by not wasting space on parameter details.

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 'checks the health and sync status' of ORDnet's own address/UTXO index, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ordnet_wallet_status by focusing on the UTXO index, not the wallet.

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?

It provides clear context by describing this index as the PRIMARY source for balance and UTXO lookups since v2.5, implying it should be used to verify index health before relying on balance data. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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