get_ws_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 60-second single-use nature, the endpoint compatibility, the requirement of API credentials, and that the response includes ws_endpoint to avoid host guessing. It does not cover edge cases like timeout behavior or error conditions, but it provides strong behavioral context for a no-parameter token-minting operation.

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 three sentences with no filler: it front-loads the core purpose, then explains endpoint/response details, and closes with the credential requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no input schema and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains why the tool exists, what it returns (including the ws_endpoint field), what credentials are needed, and how it relates to the endpoint version. The agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds relevant context about authentication and the response payload, which helps the agent understand what the call produces even though no inputs are required.

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, single-use token for an authenticated per-account WebSocket stream, with the specific use case of order/fill/position updates. It differentiates from siblings like get_ws_token_legacy by noting it uses the current /ws/token endpoint, and from market-data tools by scoping to authenticated account streams.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need a WebSocket token for per-account real-time updates, and it requires API credentials. It implicitly contrasts with the legacy sibling via 'current /ws/token endpoint,' but it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives beyond that implication.

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