check_price_feed_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency, but it only states the purpose. It does not disclose what 'unhealthy' means, whether the tool returns a boolean or detailed report, or if it performs any read-only guarantees. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, clear sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward health-check tool and is front-loaded with the core action.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about how the health check behaves and what the result looks like. It only says 'stale or unhealthy' without explaining thresholds, return values, or side effects, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptive text: pair, maxAge, and network. The description itself adds no parameter details, but per the schema coverage baseline of 3, this is acceptable since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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's purpose: checking whether a price feed is stale or unhealthy. The verb 'check' and the resource 'price feed' are specific, and 'stale or unhealthy' conveys the health-check angle. It distinguishes itself from plain price querying tools, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other price feed tools like get_chainlink_price or get_available_price_feeds. It lacks any context about appropriate scenarios, preconditions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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