get_websockets_token

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses token lifetime (15 min) and permission requirement, but does not describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if permission is missing) or any side effects. Additional detail would improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences, each conveying distinct and essential information (purpose, validity, permission). No redundancy or 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 parameterless tool without output schema, description covers purpose, token lifetime, and required permission. It could be enhanced by mentioning error scenarios or token format, but current detail is sufficient for basic usage.

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?

Tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. Description adds value by explaining the token's purpose, validity period, and permission requirement, which goes beyond the empty 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?

Description clearly states 'Issue a token for use with the private WebSocket API,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on trading, orders, and account management by being the only tool for WebSocket authentication.

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?

Mentions required permission (WebSocket interface enabled) and token validity (15 minutes), providing context for proper use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, such as other authentication methods.

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