get_health

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

The description implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get', but it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or behavior when the RPC is unreachable. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden but only partially addresses it by indicating the type of data returned.

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 a single, focused sentence that includes the core action and output, with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully guide usage. It does not explain what 'basic RPC health' entails beyond the examples, nor does it cover the purpose of the parameters, leaving the tool under-specified for an AI agent to invoke confidently.

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 input schema defines 'chain' and 'rpcUrl' with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not clarify their meaning or relationship. The agent cannot determine what values to supply or whether rpcUrl is required for a specific chain. This is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'basic RPC health', and specifies the output (chainId, latest block). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_staleness or quote_metrics, which address different concerns.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_staleness or get_metrics_count. The description only implies a simple health check, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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