Stampchain Health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists what the tool reports (API, DB, mempool, XCP status, sync state, stamp counts, circuit-breaker state), giving a clear picture of its read-only nature, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe potential side effects. Since it's a health status query, the absence of side-effect disclosure is acceptable, but a minor gap remains.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Health of stampchain.io and its indexer'), followed by a colon and a concise list of key metrics. Every phrase adds value, with no fluff or repetition. The 'Call first if other tools error' advice is a useful addition at the end. This is optimal for an agent scanning quickly.

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 an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description is complete for its purpose. It specifies all the conceptual data points an agent would expect, and the usage guidance is explicit. There is nothing missing that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation of the tool's role.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty and provides no semantic meaning. Per the guideline, a 0-parameter tool starts at baseline 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it doesn't; it focuses on the output and usage, which is appropriate. The baseline score stands because the description adds no confusion.

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 states the tool's purpose: checking the health of stampchain.io and its indexer, listing specific data points like API/DB/mempool status, sync state, and circuit-breaker state. It uses a specific noun and verb ('Health of stampchain.io...') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all data retrieval operations on stamps/blocks, not a status check.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Call first if other tools error.' This provides a clear situational trigger and implies a diagnostic role. It also lists the high-level categories of information it returns, so an agent knows exactly when this tool is appropriate. No exclusion criteria are needed for a general health check.

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