server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns status information, which strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly declare 'read-only' or mention any potential effects. The listed return content (dry-run, attribution, capabilities) makes the informational nature clear, so this is adequate.

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 one tightly packed sentence that lists the key return categories without any filler. It is front-loaded with the core concept ('Server status') and then specifies details. Every word 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown here, but referenced as existing), which likely defines the exact return fields. The description covers the three main aspects, but does not elaborate on what 'capabilities' means or how they are listed. Given the output schema fills in details, this is reasonably complete, though a touch more context (e.g., 'capabilities such as X, Y') would elevate it.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly does not attempt to describe params. With no parameters, the schema is trivially complete, and the description adds no unnecessary clutter.

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 reports server status and enumerates three specific aspects: dry-run state, attribution config, and enabled capabilities. It uses a noun phrase but the purpose is unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like get_market or place_order by focusing on server internals rather than market or trading operations.

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 the tool is for checking server configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before placing orders to verify dry-run mode) or exclude scenarios where other tools are more appropriate. Since it's a status tool, the usage context is somewhat obvious, but explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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