Check a facilitator's extended health for a specified bot, including status, version, uptime, timestamp, and reported extra fields like relayer, gas, and AML status.
Check extended facilitator health: status, version, uptime, timestamp, plus any extra fields the facilitator reports (e.g. relayer/gas/AML status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| botId | No | Bot identifier (defaults to env PAYBOT_BOT_ID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the response includes variable, facilitator-reported extra fields (relayer/gas/AML), which is genuinely useful and hints at an open-ended return shape. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the call is side-effect free.
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?
One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the returned fields listed in decreasing order of importance. No filler, though the field enumeration makes it read slightly like a spec line rather than prose.
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 usefully compensates by naming the returned fields, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. It remains incomplete on the usage dimension (when to call it, what a failure looks like) for a diagnostic tool an agent would rely on to gate other operations.
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% for the single optional botId parameter, and the schema already documents the env-var default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (check) plus resource (facilitator health) and an explicit enumeration of what the tool surfaces: status, version, uptime, timestamp, and facilitator-reported extra fields. The 'extended' qualifier signals a richer variant of a plain health check. It stops short of naming any sibling tool, so an agent must infer its role relative to the paybot_* family.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative (e.g. a non-extended health check that 'extended' implies). The agent is left to infer that this is a diagnostic call to run before or alongside other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.