Get Server Time

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns a timestamp but does not specify format (e.g., ISO 8601, Unix milliseconds), timezone, or whether it reflects request receipt time. This is minimal disclosure but adequate for a seemingly simple read operation.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, which is ideal for such a simple tool.

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 relatively complete for basic usage. However, it fails to mention the timestamp format or any nuances (e.g., whether it is the server's current time or a cached value), which could lead to incorrect parsing or interpretation by the agent.

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 the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed since the schema already shows an empty properties object.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a concrete resource ('CLOB server timestamp'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event or list_markets. However, it assumes familiarity with the acronym 'CLOB', which could be ambiguous to an agent without domain knowledge.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. While the unique function (server time) makes its use case obvious, the absence of any contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage entirely.

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