rpc_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait by noting the cost ($0.01 USDC per call) and states data is real-time. However, it does not mention rate limits, data source freshness, authentication, or error behavior, leaving some important operational context unstated.

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 concise sentences, each providing necessary information: what the tool returns and when it is useful, plus the cost. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters), and the description enumerates the returned metrics, which largely compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could be slightly more complete by specifying how metrics are returned (e.g., per-provider object) or which providers are included, but the current level is adequate for agent use.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the empty schema cannot be supplemented further.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('real-time health metrics for multiple RPC providers') and specifies the exact metrics (latency, success rate, error rate, uptime). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rpc_proxy, which likely handles actual RPC calls, and other data tools.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for routing decisions in high-frequency MEV strategies.' This gives context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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