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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: cost (4 dollars per call), payment methods, exclusion from API key coverage, push frequency (per completed minute), duration (7 days), renewal need, and management via other tools. It does not cover error handling or idempotency, but the essential operational behavior is transparent.

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 information-dense but well-organized: it leads with cost and payment, then explains the stream behavior, duration, renewal, and management. Each sentence contributes value, and the structure is logical. It is slightly long but not redundant or verbose.

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 complexity (paid webhook registration) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: payment, registration behavior, chain options, duration, renewal, and points to mev_flow_spec for the contract details. It doesn't explain the payment execution steps, but the spec reference covers that. Sufficient for an agent to decide and act.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that 'url' must be an HTTPS endpoint for receiving the pushed stream, and it explicitly lists the valid chain enum values (bnb, ethereum, polygon, avalanche) with context that it's for one chain. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema definitions.

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: it registers a webhook to receive a push stream of MEV order flow data for a single chain. It specifies the action (register), the resource (MEV stream), and the destination (HTTPS URL). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'for one chain' and mentioning management tools, making it unambiguous.

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 solid usage guidance: it explains the payment requirement, per-chain registration, renewal process, and points to management tools (webhook_status, webhook_unregister). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like stream_register_all, though the 'for one chain' phrasing implies when this tool is appropriate.

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