get_ws_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: 60s lifetime, single-use semantics, the endpoint in use, HMAC/agent support, and an explicit credential requirement. It omits failure/expiry behavior, but for a zero-argument minting call this is substantially more than most definitions provide.

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?

Deprecation warning is front-loaded where an agent will see it first, followed by purpose, then implementation and return detail. Every sentence adds a distinct fact with no 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the response carries `ws_endpoint` for the configured network. Combined with lifetime, auth, and deprecation status, an agent has what it needs to call correctly; only error/expiry handling is left implicit.

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. The only input-related fact added is the auth requirement ("Requires API credentials"), which is the one thing an agent must arrange before calling.

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 ("Mint") plus resource ("short-lived token for an authenticated per-account WebSocket stream") and narrows scope further to "order/fill/position updates". It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by flagging deprecation and naming create_ws_token as the successor.

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?

Opens with "Deprecated: use `create_ws_token`", giving an explicit when-not-to-use and naming the alternative. It does not explain the residual case in which an agent should still pick this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the deprecation directive is unambiguous.

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