oraichain_oracle_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The word 'query' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit. No behavioral traits beyond the core action are revealed.

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 a single concise sentence, which is appropriately short for a simple tool. However, it lacks any structural breakdown (e.g., bullets, sections) that might aid comprehension, and it does not distinguish between the two aspects it mentions (health vs execution status) with clarity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the parameter and what the query returns. It does neither, leaving significant gaps. An agent would not know what to supply for 'contractAddress' or how to interpret the response.

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 one parameter 'contractAddress' with an empty description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving agents without any clue about its format, purpose, or required values. This is a complete failure to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific action ('Query') and the resource ('Oraichain AI oracle') plus what it checks (signing health and contract execution status). It is distinct from the unrelated sibling tools. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes 'signing health' or how the query result is presented.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are unrelated, there is no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when this health check is appropriate. The description simply states the function without any usage direction.

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