Set Market Alert

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description enriches them with concrete behavioral context: it forces email delivery to the bound address, webhook is Pro-only, and it subscribes to future movement rather than returning immediate data. It also warns against using it for current reads. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: function, tier behavior, prerequisite, example, and caution. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses formatting (quotes, 'Do NOT', 'Try:') to emphasize key points. Despite length, it is tightly structured and not redundant.

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 tool has an output schema (per context signals), so return values need not be described. For its complexity, the description covers usage, alternatives, prerequisites, tier limitations, and a concrete example, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example and reinforces the channel/destination relationship, but the schema already documents each parameter well, including the conditional behavior of destination. No meaningfully new parameter semantics are added beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'Subscribe to movement alerts for a DCPI market' with specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from reading market data by stating 'Do NOT use to read a market right now (use get_market_dcpi_rank); this SUBSCRIBES to future movement.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_dcpi_rank or set_site_alert.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('Lets an agent MONITOR markets, not just query them'), prerequisites ('call bind_email first'), tier constraints (free email vs Pro webhook), and a direct alternative for when not to use it. This is fully actionable guidance.

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