create_ws_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 60s single-use lifetime, the auth requirement, HMAC/registered-agent key support, and the returned ws_endpoint. It omits rate limits, error behavior, and whether minting invalidates prior tokens, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and token properties; the endpoint note and credential requirement each add distinct value. No filler, though the ws_endpoint sentence is slightly more verbose than needed.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully explains the key return field (ws_endpoint) and the network-specific URL behavior, plus required auth. An agent has enough to call and consume the tool; only minor operational details (rate limits, failure modes) are missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-level for the description to add or omit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mint a short-lived token') plus the exact scope ('authenticated per-account WebSocket stream (order/fill/position updates)'). It implicitly separates itself from the legacy variants by naming the 'current /ws/token endpoint,' but never names get_ws_token or create_ws_token_legacy outright, so an agent still has to infer the routing.

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?

Gives a prerequisite ('Requires API credentials') and context (per-account authenticated stream), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, with three closely related siblings (get_ws_token, get_ws_token_legacy, create_ws_token_legacy) no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative is given, leaving routing to inference.

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