Set Market Alert

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it creates a subscription for future notifications rather than returning immediate data, email delivery is forced to the bound address, and webhook delivery requires the Pro tier. It also flags the bind_email prerequisite. This is rich behavioral context that readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone do not convey, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 longer than average but every section contributes: purpose, prerequisite, channel-specific details, example, and an explicit don't-do-this. There is a slight redundancy between 'not just query them' and the later exclusion sentence, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the core action and example.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: the domain (DCPI markets), the exact alert trigger, delivery channels, pricing tiers, required prerequisite, and a negative instruction to avoid misuse. Since an output schema exists, describing return values is not necessary. The description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional context.

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 goes further by explaining what channel values mean ('email' free, 'webhook' Pro), stating that destination is ignored for email because it is forced to the bound address, and providing a working example with actual values. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Subscribe to movement alerts for a DCPI market' and 'get notified when its Excess-Power / Constraint score moves.' It also explicitly differentiates this tool from reading a market by saying 'Do NOT use to read a market right now (use get_market_dcpi_rank); this SUBSCRIBES to future movement,' making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance, including the exclusion: 'Do NOT use to read a market right now (use get_market_dcpi_rank).' It also mentions a prerequisite ('call bind_email first'), channel-specific usage (email vs webhook), tier constraints (Pro for webhook), and a concrete example invocation. This fully routes the agent on when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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