get_feed_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does clarify that this is a feed-liveness check rather than a price/data fetch. It does not disclose the output shape, whether the check is per-symbol, or runtime implications, but the core non-price health-check behavior is reasonably conveyed.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The usage instruction is separate and actionable, so every clause earns its place.

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 should clarify what the healthy/unhealthy result looks like, but it only vaguely suggests a boolean alive/not-alive idea. The mandatory symbol parameter is also completely unexplained, leaving an agent uncertain about how to call the tool correctly.

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 provides only a title 'Symbol' for the sole required parameter, and the description never mentions symbol at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain why a symbol is needed for a feed-health check and how it affects the result; it fails to do so.

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 predicate 'Whether the alert feed itself is alive' clearly identifies the resource and the health-check operation, and it explicitly distances the tool from price retrieval. It is distinguishable from siblings such as get_recent_bars and get_market_state, though it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'check' or 'get'.

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 sentence 'Use this before answering any question that assumes live data' is an explicit, actionable condition for invoking the tool. 'Without asking for a price' provides a boundary, but the description does not name alternative tools or broader when-not-to-use scenarios.

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