wait_for_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by specifying the timeout limit (max 300 s) and the return condition ('when the level is reached or the timeout expires'). This goes beyond the static schema and provides useful behavioral context for the agent.

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 compact and front-loaded. Two sentences convey the core behavior and termination condition without any redundant wording. Every word adds meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 description leaves critical gaps: it doesn't explain what happens if both above and below are null, whether they can conflict, or the meaning of the `field` parameter (last/bid/ask). The agent may misuse the tool or fail to set parameters correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It only mentions `above` and `below` in context, but fails to clarify that they are optional, mutually usable, or that other parameters like `field` and `exchange` exist. The agent gets almost no help in understanding how to set the correct input.

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 action ('Watch the live price') with a clear condition ('until it reaches `above` or falls to `below`') and a termination condition. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_quote or get_price_history by focusing on waiting for a price level, not just retrieving 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_quote or wait_for_market. The purpose implies a waiting behavior, but no mention of scenarios where a simple quote fetch or market status check would be more appropriate, or how it relates to the order placement flow.

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