stream_updates

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 only mentions 'bounded' updates and supported types, but omits critical traits like whether this is a long-lived stream, how timeout/updates parameters affect behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value: 'bounded' conveys scope, and the supported/excluded lists are relevant differentiators. No fluff.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 6 parameters and no annotations. The description does not explain the streaming semantics, how to configure the number of updates or timeout, or the nature of the return value beyond 'updates'. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not explain any of the 6 parameters, only indirectly maps 'kind' via the subscription types. The meaning of 'epic', 'scale', 'updates', 'account_id', and 'timeout_seconds' is left to the reader's inference, which is inadequate given zero schema descriptions.

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 collects bounded Lightstreamer updates, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by listing supported subscription types (PRICE, ACCOUNT, TRADE, CHART) and explicitly excluding deprecated MARKET, making it unique among the sibling tools.

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 gives clear context on which subscription types are supported and that MARKET is excluded, providing a form of when-to-use guidance. It does not name specific alternative tools, but given the sibling list contains no other streaming tool, this is sufficient.

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