Set Alert

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

The annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), and the description adds only the qualifier 'local' and example conditions. It does not disclose behavior on trigger, persistence, or side effects, but the annotations do signal a non-read mutation, lowering the bar for additional disclosure.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, and includes examples in parentheses. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 low complexity (4 params, no output schema, no nested objects), and the schema covers all parameters. The description and schema together specify the essential behavior; the absence of return-value documentation is acceptable for a simple mutation 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical examples ('RSI < 30', 'PRICE > 250') that illustrate how condition and target_value combine, providing extra semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('Sets') and the object ('a local price or technical indicator alert'), with concrete examples ('RSI < 30' or 'PRICE > 250'). This distinguishes it from the many read-oriented sibling tools such as get_ohlcv and get_market_analysis.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to set an alert) but does not explicitly state when-to-use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling list contains no other alert-setting tool, so context is clear but not formally articulated.

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