kraken_get_websockets_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves a token, implying a read-only operation, and mentions the purpose of enabling real-time data streams. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as token expiration, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds some context but is minimal.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Retrieve a token') and adds relevant purpose. There is no redundant information or excessive detail, making it highly concise and clear.

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 parameters and a simple retrieval action, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose and the context of use. Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It could perhaps mention prerequisites like authentication, but given the low complexity, the current description is sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add further parameter semantics. It correctly implies that no inputs are required, matching the empty input schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a token for accessing the Websockets API'). It also explains the purpose ('to enable real-time data streams'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch data or manage orders.

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 for when to use the tool: when real-time data streams are needed via the Websockets API. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or compare with alternative tools, though the context is sufficient for an agent to infer its purpose.

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