server_info

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'No payment required' and implying a read-only status endpoint through the word 'status.' However, with no annotations provided, it leaves uncertainty about side effects, authentication requirements beyond payment, and response format.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every piece of information (status fields and payment requirement) earns its place. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter status tool, the description covers the returned fields and a key behavioral requirement (no payment). It is mostly complete, though it could briefly mention that this is a read-only operation or how the output is structured.

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 schema already fully covers inputs. The description appropriately focuses on outputs instead of parameters, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the tool as returning gateway status and enumerates the available fields (mode, network, price, gatedPrefix, upstream). The verb is implied rather than explicit, but the resource and scope are clear and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_quote and proxy_request.

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 given about when to use this tool versus get_quote or proxy_request. The phrase 'No payment required' hints at a prerequisite, but there is no explicit usage context or mention of alternative tools.

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