Re-enable a disabled webhook — flips it back to active and clears its match-state so the next eval treats every currently-matching ticker as new. Use after fixing whatever caused auto-disable. No-op on an already-active webhook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Webhook id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it flips status to active, clears match-state, and resets evaluation behavior. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.
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?
Three sentences with no redundancy: main action first, then details (match-state clearing), then usage note (no-op). Optimally front-loaded and efficient.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, side-effects, and when to use. Complete for an enable operation.
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 100% with 'id' described as 'Webhook id.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond that; baseline 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 states the tool re-enables a disabled webhook, using specific verb 're-enable' and resource 'webhook'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (delete, test, list, get) by focusing on the enable action.
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 advises 'Use after fixing whatever caused auto-disable' and notes it's a no-op on active webhooks, providing clear usage context. However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternative webhook tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs, but get_ticker and get_ticker_history overlap (both return a single historical row via asof), and the four subscribe_* tools are thin wrappers around create_webhook, creating some ambiguity. Detailed descriptions mitigate but don't eliminate confusion.
The tickerbot_ prefix and verb_noun pattern are consistent (create_*, get_*, list_*, delete_*, update_*), but subscribe_* deviates from create_* for webhooks, and scan/search_news are bare verbs. Overall predictable.
35 tools is excessive for the domain; many could be consolidated (e.g., four subscribe_* variants into a single parameterized webhook creator, get_ticker/get_ticker_history into one). The breadth of data types justifies some volume, but this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for coherence.
Full lifecycle coverage for universes, custom signals, and webhooks; extensive read-side for tickers, series, bars, events, news, and scans. No critical dead ends: anything creatable can be updated/deleted/tested, and data lookups have appropriate query tools.
