service_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description is transparent about being free ('Free') and details the exact data fields returned (engine, curve version, ledger height, buyer counts). This goes beyond a generic status message and informs the agent of the operational context. It doesn't mention side effects or return format, but for a read-only status tool, the description is sufficient. Since annotations are absent, this adds significant value.

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 concise and front-loaded with 'Free' and the core purpose. It lists key data points in a compact manner. The structure is a single sentence that efficiently packs information without fluff. It could be slightly improved by breaking into a list, but it's clear and direct.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides all essential information about what the tool does and what it returns. It includes enough detail about the data fields (engine, curve version, ledger height, buyer counts) to help an agent interpret the result. The lack of an output schema is compensated by this descriptive detail. The description is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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, so the schema is essentially empty. The description compensates by explaining what data will be returned, which is critical for an agent to know what to expect. Even though there are no parameters, the description's detail about the return contents provides semantic value beyond the empty schema. With zero params, baseline is 4, and the description meets that by adding context.

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 it provides service status information, including engine type, curve version, ledger height, and buyer counts. It distinguishes this status tool from sibling tools (verify_claim and quote) by its focus on service-level data rather than claims or pricing. While it doesn't explicitly name siblings, the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool is for checking service status, which is a standalone health/status check. It doesn't explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, but given that siblings are 'verify_claim' and 'quote', the context makes it clear this is for status checks, not operations. No explicit exclusions or alternatives provided, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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