gryps_venue_liveness

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals key behavioral details: returns specific data (state root, sequence number, custody, implementation), functions as a chain-side source of truth, and works independently of API status. No contradictions.

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 wasted words. First sentence lists key data points and context; second sentence adds crucial usage advantage. Efficiently front-loaded.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool returns and when to use it. With no output schema, the description serves as the sole documentation for return values, which it provides clearly. Adequate for a simple, stateless read tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for zero params is 4, and no additional context is required.

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 tool's purpose: a chain-side venue heartbeat providing state root, sequence number, USDC custody, and current implementation. It differentiates from sibling tools which focus on funding, markets, open interest, and quirks.

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 explicitly highlights when to use this tool: even when the venue API is down, as the chain is the truth source. It implies reliability checks over API-dependent data, though it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools.

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