ProveTrade service health

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes further: free-tier idle spin-down, 'sleeping is normal,' 429 + HTML waiting page, and 'makes no change to either service.' This fully discloses the failure mode and reassures about side effects. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 opening sentence states the core purpose, and the rest is densely informative: when to call, the 429/sleeping behavior, and side-effect safety. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 optional enum parameter and a provided output schema, the description covers all needed context: the spin-down behavior, the 429 misinterpretation trap, the read-only guarantee, and the two services probed. Nothing important 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?

The one optional parameter `service` is fully documented in the schema (enum values, default 'both'), and the description's scope mentions both services. The description adds no extra syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the ProveTrade gateway and Go analyzer are awake, and how fast they answered.' This clearly distinguishes the tool as a health probe for two named services, which is distinct from the sibling tools (warm_engine, validate_csv, audit_csv, metrics).

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'before an audit, and whenever an audit fails with a sleeping/unreachable error.' It also explains the expected 429-on-sleeping behavior so agents don't misread it as a failure. No alternatives are named, but the tool has a unique role among the siblings.

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