Server status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the informational surface (feed, RPC, wallet, trading state, limits) but says nothing about auth requirements, whether values are live or cached, or the shape of the response. Useful but not deep.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the highest-value item ('whether trading is on and its limits') is placed at the end where it still lands. It is a verbless fragment, which slightly hurts scannability, but nothing is wasted.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does enumerate the five things returned. The enumeration is a bit terse ('the RPC' — a URL? a health status?), leaving some ambiguity for a tool whose only output is that data.

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, which is the baseline-4 case, and the description correctly presents the tool as parameter-free by framing it as a server-wide read. Nothing about parameters needs explaining.

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 resource (this server's configuration) and enumerates the specific facets reported: feed, RPC, wallet, trading enabled state, and limits. An agent can distinguish it from the action-oriented siblings (pump_buy, pump_sell, pump_launch) which are all mutations. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'reports'), so it reads as a list of fields rather than a stated operation.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not statement. However, the mention of 'whether trading is on and its limits' strongly implies the natural use case of verifying trading availability before calling pump_buy or pump_sell. That inference is reasonable but left to the agent.

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