imd_statusCheck IMD network health, live action prices, wallet IMD/ETH balances and Permit2 approval, daily spend caps, and saver totals before placing paid agent orders.
Network health, the live price per action, this wallet's IMD/ETH balance and Permit2 approval, today's spend against the caps, and what the saver has saved so far. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is free and that it surfaces balance, Permit2 approval, and spend-vs-cap state, which strongly implies a read-only informational tool, but it never explicitly says it is read-only, nor does it mention auth requirements, rate limits, or 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?
A single dense sentence with a trailing "Free." and no wasted words. It is efficient, though it opens with a secondary item (network health) rather than front-loading the core "wallet + limits" purpose from the title.
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 usefully enumerates what the caller gets back, which is exactly what an agent needs from a zero-parameter status call. It falls short only on sibling routing and an explicit read-only assurance.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 is appropriate; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the (empty) schema.
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 enumerates the concrete resources this status tool reports: network health, price per action, wallet IMD/ETH balance, Permit2 approval, spend vs caps, and savings. That is specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it never states a verb and gives no explicit contrast with the adjacent imd_check.
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?
"Free" is a real usage cue implying the tool is safe/cheap to call at any time, but there is no when-to-use framing and no routing to alternatives such as imd_check or imd_orders. Usage is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.