Fetch one webhook subscription by id (current state, match-set, schedule). Account-scoped: any key on the account can read any of the account's webhooks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Webhook id (looks like `wh_…`). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses that it's account-scoped and returns state/match-set/schedule, but lacks details on error handling, id format confirmation, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences, both directly relevant. No fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter. Description explains the returned data structure. Could benefit from noting error cases or id format example, but sufficient given the simplicity.
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 the id parameter described. Tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of id. 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?
Clearly states the verb 'fetch', the resource 'webhook subscription by id', and specifies the returned data (current state, match-set, schedule). Account-scoping distinguishes it from list_webhooks and delete_webhook.
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?
Implies usage by stating account-scoped and read-only, but does not explicitly mention when to use this vs list_webhooks (e.g., for a single specific webhook) or any exclusions.
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.
