watch_ticks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the live WebSocket mechanism, a bounded collection window, the returned payload (latest price plus full history), and the paid market-data subscription requirement. It omits connection lifecycle, error, and rate-limit details, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Three focused sentences, front-loaded with what happens and then prerequisites. Every sentence contributes useful information with no wasted text.

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 streaming tool with no annotations or output schema and 0% schema descriptions, it covers the return payload and subscription prerequisite but leaves critical parameter semantics and some operational behavior unspecified. It is enough to start, but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain all 3 parameters. It explains instrument_token via search_instruments but says nothing about mode's ltp/quote/full enum or duration_seconds' range and default; 'short window' is too vague.

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 states a specific verb and resource: open a live WebSocket connection to Kite and collect ticks for a short window, returning latest price plus history. This clearly distinguishes it from snapshot siblings like get_ltp/get_quote and from get_historical_data.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite (use search_instruments first) and a paid subscription requirement, establishing clear context. It does not explicitly name when to use this rather than get_ltp/get_quote, but the live-window framing implies the alternative.

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