Register a HoodGrow corporate-action webhook

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: the webhook signature verification requirement, the one-time display of webhookSecret, and the billing implications (idle webhook costs nothing). This supplements the idempotentHint (update/register) and side-effect-free nature.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, security, authorization, billing, parameter semantics, output, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically, without filler.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return value (webhookSecret shown once), authentication requirements, billing model, security signature, and an alternative for Builder-subscription users. The idempotentHint in annotations complements the 'register or update' wording.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the symbols parameter by explaining that it affects both delivery and billing ('what you're charged for'), which is critical for understanding cost implications. The url parameter's purpose is also clarified as the POST target. This goes beyond the 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 verb ('Register (or update)') and the resource ('a credit-funded corporate-action webhook for this wallet'). It goes on to explain the tool's behavior (HoodGrow POSTs events to url), which distinguishes it from the read-only get_* siblings and the credit-purchase 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 provides explicit usage context: requires HOODGROW_PRIVATE_KEY, registration is free, and billing is per delivered event. It also names an alternative path ('a Builder-subscription webhook is set from the website instead'), making clear when not to use this tool.

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