dex_wait_live_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'non-durable' and 'WebSocket', giving some insight, but does not disclose what happens on timeout, connection failures, or whether events are streamed or returned as a batch.

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 that conveys purpose, mechanism, and a key usage distinction without extraneous words.

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 tool involves a real-time event subscription with 7 parameters, but the description lacks details on return format, event handling, or how parameters like max_events and timeout_seconds affect behavior. It is insufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and no parameter descriptions in the input schema, the description should add meaning to the 7 parameters. It does not mention any parameter names or semantics, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 waits for low-latency finalized DEX events over a specific mechanism (CometBFT WebSocket) without BDS, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool dex_list_events for replay purposes.

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 explicitly contrasts with dex_list_events for replay, indicating when not to use this tool. However, it does not explain when it is appropriate to wait for live events versus other methods.

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