server_metricsReview coin-scout transport metrics to diagnose slow responses, verify caching, and track HTTP requests, JSON-RPC batching, retries, and rate-limit state.
coin-scout transport stats: HTTP requests issued, JSON-RPC batch compression, retries, cache hit rate and adaptive rate-limit state. Use to explain slow responses or confirm caching is working.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0-developmentDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds the metric categories and the diagnostic intent, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about scope (whole server vs. current session), cost, or freshness of the counters.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The metric inventory comes first and the actionable 'use to...' guidance second, which is the right front-loading for a diagnostic tool.
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?
There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back — and it does so by listing the five metric families. An agent knows what it will get and why to call it. Minor gap: no indication of whether the stats cover the whole service or the current session.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.
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 names the specific resource ('coin-scout transport stats') and enumerates exactly which counters are exposed (HTTP requests, batch compression, retries, cache hit rate, rate-limit state). That clearly separates it from every sibling tool, which all return chain/wallet data rather than server diagnostics. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, so it stops just short of the top mark.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use to explain slow responses or confirm caching is working.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right choice for a diagnostic question. It does not name any alternative or state when not to use it, but no sibling covers server transport stats, so the omission is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.