tickerbot_subscribe_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains exactly when the webhook fires (on true transition for booleans, on condition crossing for numerics) and how delivery routing works (webhook POST, Discord, in-app). It does not mention cadence throttling or lifecycle management, but the core behavior is transparent enough for safe use.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core trigger behavior, then concise usage guidance. Every clause adds useful information with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite 10 parameters no output schema, the description covers the decision-critical aspects: trigger conditions, scope control, and channel routing combinations. The schema handles per-field details and enum values. Missing some context about subscription lifecycle and cadence effects, but the description is sufficient for a competent agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-parameter meaning: it explains that ticker is optional and omitting it watches the whole universe, that target_url maps to webhook, and that discord_url pairs with channel:'discord'. This goes beyond the schema's per-field text and clarifies the relationship between channel and delivery fields.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Register a webhook') and clearly states the resource (signal subscriptions) and the trigger semantics (booleans turning true, numerics crossing a condition). It differentiates from sibling tools like subscribe_ticker, subscribe_scan, and create_webhook by focusing on signal-based conditional notifications.

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 gives clear usage direction: how to scope with optional ticker, how to choose delivery (target_url for webhook, discord_url for Discord, omit for in-app). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, but the stated options and constraints provide sufficient guidance for selecting and invoking correctly.

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