RPC health

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

There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions that latency is 'measured', implying a network call, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or that it performs a live request. It also does not state that the operation is read-only.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. All listed items (health, version, slot, latency) are relevant and front-loaded.

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?

While the tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description only lists return values without explaining the output format or any defaults (though defaults are in the schema). It is adequate but leaves room for details like JSON structure or error conditions.

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 fully describes the 'url' parameter with its default behavior (SOLANA_RPC_URL or public mainnet-beta), providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists the specific outputs: health, solana-core version, current slot, and getSlot latency, for a Solana RPC endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like priority_fee_estimate or submit_transaction, which target different 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as latency_compare or epoch_info. The intended use case is implied by the name and description, but no context or exclusions are provided.

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