kr-crypto-intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool returns ('status of Upbit, Bithumb, and Binance API connections'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this performs active API calls (which could have rate limits), what specific health metrics are checked, authentication requirements, or error handling behavior for a health monitoring tool.

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 perfectly concise with two focused sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second specifies exactly what gets returned. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, health check purpose) and the presence of an output schema (which should document return values), the description provides adequate context. It clearly states what the tool does and which services it monitors. However, for a health monitoring tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning whether this performs active API calls or checks cached status.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully documents the empty parameter set.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Check service health and exchange connectivity status') and identifies the exact resources involved ('Upbit, Bithumb, and Binance API connections'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_fx_rate or get_kr_prices by focusing on health monitoring rather than market data retrieval.

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 usage context through the mention of specific exchange APIs, suggesting this tool should be used when monitoring connectivity to those particular services. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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