Feed status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a useful auth detail—no API key needed—but does not mention rate limits, freshness guarantees, or error behavior.

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 two short sentences: payload first, then the auth note. Both sentences add information and there is no filler.

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 read-only feed-status tool, the description covers the returned data and the API-key requirement, while annotations cover safety and idempotency. It could be stronger if it clarified why 'status' differs from sibling health/latest/tiers tools, but no critical calling information is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to explain, and schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 names the concrete payload—the newest 1-minute bar plus the tiers served—so an agent knows what data to expect. However, it does not state a verb or explicitly distinguish this from overlapping siblings like tilla_latest, tilla_tiers, or tilla_health.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives; the only condition given is 'No API key needed,' which is authorization information rather than a selection rule. The agent must infer that this is the feed-status check rather than one of the similar sibling tools.

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