get_watched_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output components (channels, buffer size, last update, staleness) and labels the operation as diagnostic, which adds context. However, it does not mention prerequisites like an active WebSocket connection or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, though 'list' implies it.

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 sentence with a clear verb-first structure, including a parenthetical qualifier and specific data fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and output details, and since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. It could be enhanced by noting how this relates to watch_symbol or server_status, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic list, it is sufficiently complete.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to elaborate on arguments, and the schema confirms no required inputs.

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 lists currently active WebSocket subscriptions and their buffer state, naming the specific returned fields (channels, buffer size, last update, staleness). It includes a 'diagnostic' qualifier that distinguishes it from sibling data retrieval tools like get_ticker or get_ohlcv.

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 checking subscription status and diagnostics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as watch_symbol or server_status. It also does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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