get_auth_status

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 accurately explains the two return modes ('keyed' vs 'demo') and explicitly states that the API key is not revealed, providing useful security-relevant context beyond a simple status check.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds value, explaining modes, their implications, and a security guarantee.

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's simplicity (0 params, output schema present), the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, what the possible return values mean, and an important security behavior. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description appropriately omits parameter details, matching the baseline score of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('how the Trading Volatility MCP is authenticated for this session'). It distinguishes from sibling market-data tools by focusing solely on authentication status.

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 context is clear: the tool reports authentication mode for the current session. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the purpose is unambiguous and self-contained, making it obvious when to invoke it (e.g., at session start to verify access level).

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