set_market_alert

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

The description claims a subscription action (create/register for alerts), which is a write operation, but the annotation states readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, causing confusion about whether the tool has side effects. The description does not address this inconsistency or clarify other behavioral aspects like persistence or cancellation.

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 three sentences: first states the purpose, second details parameter usage, third provides a practical example. No unnecessary words, clearly front-loaded, and each sentence adds value.

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 is incomplete due to the contradiction with annotations, which undermines trust in the tool's behavior. It also lacks details on expected side effects (e.g., whether the subscription is persistent), how to manage or delete alerts, and confirmation of successful setup. For a subscription tool, these are important contextual gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: market (which DCPI market), channel (email or webhook), and destination (email address or URL). It provides a concrete example combining all three, making the parameter usage very clear.

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 subscribes to movement alerts for a DCPI market, specifically for Excess-Power/Constraint score changes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing monitoring over querying. The verb 'subscribe' and resource 'market' are specific and unambiguous.

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 (to monitor market alerts) and provides explicit instructions for two channel types (email and webhook) with corresponding destination formats. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context implies it for ongoing monitoring rather than one-off queries. The 'PRO' hint indicates a usage tier.

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