Check your server license tier and see which gold market data tools are available for use.
Show server license tier and available tools.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "diagnostic"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is reasonably transparent. However, it doesn't explicitly state safety characteristics, auth requirements, or side effects, leaving some uncertainty for safety-critical agents.
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 sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words or redundant details.
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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the output contents. It could optionally mention the response format or that it's safe to call, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.
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 the schema already covers everything. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param information.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies two concrete resources: server license tier and available tools. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on gold data and cache/paxg management.
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 implies clear usage context: use when you need server diagnostic information. No sibling serves this purpose, so the context is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, lacking an exclusion clause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.