Check Obol API health and status instantly. Returns free health status to verify service availability.
Check Obol API health and status. Free.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "obol_health"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and that it's 'Free', but does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., status code, message), whether it requires authentication, or if it has any side effects. For a health check, the absence of any mention of output format or potential rate limits leaves the agent guessing.
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 a single sentence with no fluff. It conveys the essential purpose and the 'Free' factor in minimal words. For a zero-parameter health check, this level of conciseness is appropriate and well-structured.
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 is mostly sufficient for a basic health-check tool. However, it lacks detail on the response format or what 'health and status' implies (e.g., whether it returns a JSON object with uptime). An agent might need to know if it returns a simple boolean or a detailed report to decide how to interpret the result. This gap prevents a higher score.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to clarify parameter meanings since none exist. It accurately reflects that no input 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Obol API health and status'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like wallet, token, swap, and defi tools, which are all about specific data operations. The name 'obol_health' reinforces the purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. While it's intuitively a health check, the description does not explicitly indicate that it should be used to verify API availability or as a preliminary step before other calls. The 'Free' note is the only extra context, but it doesn't address usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.