Aggregate service health for Nexus Exchange stack (indexer, engine, oracle, bots) for status pages; no credentials needed. Deprecated: use fetch_status.
Deprecated: use fetch_status. Aggregate service health of the exchange stack (indexer / engine / oracle / bots), as used by status pages. Public — no credentials needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the deprecation status and that the endpoint is public with no credentials required, which is genuinely useful auth context. It stops short of saying whether the deprecated tool still functions, how often it can be called, or how failures are surfaced.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation notice that matters most, then the scope. The trailing 'as used by status pages' is mild context rather than filler, so the text earns its space.
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 param-less, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, scope, auth profile, and replacement routing. The main remaining gap is that it does not gesture at what the returned aggregate health looks like, which matters somewhat given no output schema exists.
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?
Zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a param-less tool is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('aggregate service health of the exchange stack') and enumerates the covered components (indexer / engine / oracle / bots). It also immediately flags deprecation and names the replacement sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from fetch_status without opening a schema.
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 opening clause explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool ('Deprecated: use `fetch_status`'), naming the exact alternative. That is an unusually direct when-not-to-use instruction with the correct routing target.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.