Exchange status

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the categories of status returned (auth state, trading enabled, guardrails) and that it acts as a capability-discovery entry point. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., behavior when the exchange is down), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentence listing what is returned, followed by a one-clause directive on when to call it. Front-loaded with the resource and free of filler; the enumerated items all earn their place.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries the remaining burden by enumerating what a caller learns from the response. An agent can decide whether to call this first without any further information.

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 baseline is 4 and there are no semantics the description could add or omit. Nothing in the description misrepresents the parameter surface.

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?

States a specific resource enumeration: server time, maintenance state, API limits (page sizes, candle intervals), and this MCP server's own auth/trading/guardrail configuration. This is clearly distinguishable from market-data siblings like get_ticker or get_candles, which return market data rather than environment/bootstrap metadata.

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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger: 'Call this first when unsure what is available,' which is strong routing guidance for a discovery tool. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but for a zero-param bootstrap tool there is little ambiguity to resolve.

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