server_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the output fields but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or requires no special authorization. While the name suggests a status check, the description does not confirm safety or operational impact.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly categorizes the tool ('Health and diagnostics') then lists the specific diagnostic fields. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unrelated information.

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?

The tool is a simple 0-parameter status endpoint with an output schema. The description explicitly enumerates the return contents, which is sufficient given the low complexity and the existence of an output schema. It could potentially mention that no authentication is needed, but that is not critical for a status tool.

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 supplies complete parameter information. According to the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter details but none are needed.

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 as 'Health and diagnostics' and lists the specific diagnostic fields (uptime, exchanges, watch count, cache rows, ccxt version, WebSocket reconnect count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all market data or analysis functions. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less directive than ideal.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools. The use case is implied by the name and content, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'for market data, use other tools'.

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