Poll Subscription Events

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations. It explains the polling nature ('Events are POLLED, not pushed'), the data content ('Each event carries a price snapshot plus per-code deltas'), cursor lifecycle ('The returned `cursor` is what you pass as `since` next time'), and authentication ('REQUIRES an API key') and quota info ('does NOT count against the monthly request quota').

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 concise yet comprehensive, using only 5-6 sentences to convey purpose, usage, behavior, parameter details, and constraints. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the single optional parameter (with schema coverage) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how to use the cursor, data content, polling behavior, authentication, and quota implications. No gaps remain.

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 100% with a clear description of the `since` parameter. The description reinforces and expands on it: 'pass the `since` cursor (the seq number) returned by the previous call to get only newer events. Omit (or 0) to get the earliest available events.' This adds practical usage guidance.

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's purpose: 'Poll for new subscription events — the recurring snapshots recorded by the user's watches.' It uses a specific verb ('poll') and resource ('subscription events'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like opa_get_price or opa_get_history.

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 explains when to use the tool: 'Use this to catch up on what changed since the last poll' and how: 'pass the `since` cursor.' It also notes that events are polled, not pushed, implying periodic calls. However, it does not explicitly mention scenarios where the tool should not be used or provide alternatives.

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