stream_live_markets

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

The description discloses that it uses WebSocket, collects events for a specified duration, and returns specific data fields. However, it lacks details about side effects (likely read-only), connection management, resource impact, or error scenarios. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but is only moderately transparent.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action, mode, and output, while the second provides a practical use case. Information density is high and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no nested objects or enums, the description covers the input (duration) and output (accumulated changes) adequately. It lacks details on WebSocket lifecycle (e.g., how to stop, connection timeout) but is reasonably complete given the low complexity and absence of output schema or annotations.

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 already documents the single parameter 'durationMs' with a description (how long to collect events in ms, default 5000), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it collects real-time market probability changes via WebSocket for a duration and returns accumulated data. It specifies what the output includes (market ID, probability patches, spread/midpoint updates) and gives a use case ('seeing which markets are active right now'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling streaming tools like stream_market or stream_orderbook.

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 implies usage for real-time monitoring (e.g., 'useful for seeing which markets are active right now') but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparisons to other tools.

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