create_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the monitor 'fires' on matching events and optionally uses webhooks, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not detail side effects, permissions, activation state, or what happens without a webhook endpoint. Moderate 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?

The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and object, and every word contributes meaning. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core concept, target types, and webhook option. It does not explain signals/materiality filtering or lifecycle details, but these are covered in the schema. The description offers enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a high-level frame ('standing watch', 'matching events') that helps contextualize parameters like signals and target_type, but it does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Create a monitor: a standing watch on a ticker/CIK/company/form/event type that fires (and optionally webhooks) on matching events.' It uses a specific verb ('Create'), identifies the resource ('monitor'), and explains the function, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_monitor or delete_monitor.

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 implies usage—this is the tool for creating monitors—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusions. It also does not mention prerequisites like creating a webhook endpoint first. Usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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