Get Telemetry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context: it explicitly states it's a view call and that msg.sender is set to subscriber_address, plus the subscription requirement. This enriches the behavioral understanding beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main output, and efficiently conveys the key constraints. It is concise with no redundant phrasing, though it could arguably combine related points.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (present) and annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential information: what is returned, the subscription requirement, and the view-call behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without missing critical details.

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%, and the parameter 'subscriber_address' is already well-documented with a description and an example. The tool description repeats the subscription requirement but does not add new nuance about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 output ('Full signal: arbitrageVector + priceSpread') and implies a read operation on telemetry. It distinguishes from siblings like get_oracle_status or get_oracle_info by its specific content, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 mentions the prerequisite of an active subscription and that it's executed as a view call, which gives context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly guide the agent when to choose this over alternative tools, and there is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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