get_ws_token

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the token's short-lived and single-use nature, requirement for API credentials, and support for HMAC keys and registered agents. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 consists of two concise sentences. Every sentence provides essential information: token properties, endpoint details, authentication requirements, and connection method. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the token's return value implicitly and covers its usage context. It addresses the token's lifespan, use count, and authentication prerequisites. It could mention the token format or error handling, but overall it's complete for a simple token minting 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?

The schema has zero parameters (100% schema coverage by default). The description adds meaning by explaining the token's purpose and usage, meeting the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 mints a short-lived (60s), single-use token for per-account WebSocket streams (order/fill/position updates). It specifies the token lifetime, usage constraints, and connection method, leaving no ambiguity.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for WebSocket streams) and distinguishes it from the legacy endpoint by explicitly stating it uses the current `/ws/token` endpoint. However, it could be more explicit about preferring this over the sibling `get_ws_token_legacy`.

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