get_realtime_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it retrieves status information (implying read-only), explains the meaning of 'connected=false' (offline state), and clarifies that subscriptions can exist but won't receive events until connected. This adds valuable context beyond what a simple 'get' implies, though it could mention response format or error handling.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key details, and the second explains critical behavioral nuances (connection state implications). Every sentence adds essential value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (monitoring WebSocket subscriptions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, key status elements, and important behavioral notes. However, it could be enhanced by mentioning the return format or example output to fully compensate for the lack of structured output documentation.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools without parameters.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of WebSocket subscriptions'), detailing exactly what information is retrieved (active topics, connection state, stats, recent messages). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on WebSocket subscription status rather than market data, orders, or other real-time operations.

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 this tool: to check WebSocket subscription status, including connection state and subscription details. It implies usage by explaining that 'connected=false means offline' and subscriptions won't receive events until connected. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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