fetch_cancel_on_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it explains the dead man's switch semantics, states the credential requirement, distinguishes `enabled` (account opt-in) from `active` (opt-in AND exchange switch), and clarifies that `grace_secs` is null when the feature is unavailable. It omits rate-limit and caching behavior, keeping 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured to explain the concept and the three returned fields in order. The sentences are dense but each carries information; the COD explainer is slightly long for a status getter, but nothing is pure filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does so explicitly for all three fields including the null case. It also covers auth requirements and the scope caveat for REST-only clients, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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 there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level ambiguity exists to penalize.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the authenticated account's cancel-on-disconnect (COD) status,' and then defines what COD actually is. An agent can grasp the purpose immediately. It falls short of a 5 only because the sibling list contains a near-identical `get_cancel_on_disconnect`, and the description never distinguishes itself from that tool.

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?

Usage context is implied ('Requires API credentials,' plus the note that REST-only traders are not covered), which scopes who this is relevant for. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and neither `set_cancel_on_disconnect` nor `get_cancel_on_disconnect` is named as a counterpart, so the agent must infer routing.

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