Is It Down API (60SecMonitor)

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuinely new economics and cost context the annotations do not encode: 'Free', 'no payment', 'one request to 60SecMonitor'. Return format details are absent, but the cost signal is real added value for an agent choosing between free and paid siblings.

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?

Three short sentences, led by the single most decision-relevant token ('Free') and then the verb, resource and returned fields. Every sentence carries information and none is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (slug, name, category) and the paging model, so an agent knows what it gets back. Minor gaps remain around total page counts or sort order, which is acceptable for a simple two-parameter list tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two optional parameters, so page and search are fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's 'search' and 'paged' wording mirrors the schema without adding syntax, defaults, or matching rules beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list or search tracked vendors) and names the returned fields (slug, name, category) plus the paged behavior. It implies a distinction from the paid siblings via 'Free'/'before paying', but never names a sibling outright, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Use it before paying to confirm a vendor is tracked and to get its exact slug' gives a clear triggering context and a concrete reason to prefer this over a paid call. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative such as validate_vendor or vendor_status.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: untracked names are reported rather than fatal, no charge occurs if nothing is tracked or all lookups fail, and payment mechanics are specified ($0.05 USDC via x402 placed in _meta["x402/payment"]). No contradiction with the declared hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and scope, then the routing rule, edge cases, and pricing. It is dense with helpful facts and nearly every clause earns its place, though the x402 payment parenthetical is the one clause an agent could infer from the billing context.

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 having no output schema, the description explains what comes back (per-vendor status plus a list of non-operational vendors), the failure/edge behavior, the cost model, and the alternative tool. Single-parameter, low-complexity input means nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single vendors array including the 1-25 bounds and accepted name/slug/domain forms. The description restates the 25 cap and adds that untracked names are tolerated, but supplies no additional syntax or format guidance beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the status of ... SaaS or cloud vendors in one call') with a concrete cap of 25, and names the sibling it is not: 'Use vendor_status when you need incident detail for a single vendor.' An agent can distinguish it from vendor_status without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering scenario ('is my stack down?' questions) and an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it (vendor_status for single-vendor incident detail). Nothing is left to inference about when to pick this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those hints: that the call is free, makes no network request, and requires no payment — which explains why a pricing tool exists in a payment-gated toolset.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact ('Free') is front-loaded before the return-field list. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields. It stops short of describing the shape or currency of the price values, a minor gap for an otherwise complete zero-argument definition.

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 zero parameters there is nothing for the schema to document beyond an empty object, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this explicitly with 'No input', removing any doubt about required arguments.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the price of every paid tool'), then enumerates the exact fields returned (payment network, receiving address, data source). The four sibling tools are all vendor/status oriented, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to pick for pricing data.

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 text signals applicability indirectly ('Free', 'No input, no network request, no payment'), which tells the agent this is a zero-cost, zero-argument lookup. It never states when to choose this over alternatives or what conditions select it, so usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds non-redundant behavioral facts: no network request, no payment, no existence check. It also discloses the tool's central limitation (it does not confirm the vendor is tracked), which is exactly the context an agent needs to avoid over-trusting a positive result.

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 cost signal ('Free.') and the offline/format-only constraint before the alternative. No filler; each clause delivers a distinct, decision-relevant fact.

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 single-parameter, annotation-rich tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, boundaries, cost, and the rerouting case. It hints at a return ('see how it will be matched') but doesn't describe the match output, a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates the accepted formats (name, slug, domain) with examples. The description restates 'name, slug or domain' without adding format syntax or validation rules beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (validate/check) and resource (vendor name, slug or domain) plus the scope of the check ('well-formed' and 'how it will be matched'). It also names and routes away from the sibling list_vendors, so an agent can distinguish it from vendor_status/list_vendors without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for this tool (format-only, offline) and names the alternative plus its selecting condition ('use list_vendors to confirm the vendor is actually tracked'). The boundary between format validation and existence verification is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, but the description adds material behavior they cannot express: a $0.01 USDC per-call charge via x402 with the payment passed in _meta["x402/payment"], and the billing exemptions for invalid input or upstream failure. That is precisely the kind of cost/auth context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the sibling route, then the prerequisite and billing mechanics. Every clause carries actionable information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the response contents (status, confidence, incidents, 30-day uptime, data freshness). Payment flow, prerequisite lookup and error billing behavior round out what an agent needs to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single vendor parameter already documents accepted forms ('Stripe', 'stripe', stripe.com). The description implies a single-vendor scope but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (one SaaS/cloud vendor's current status), enumerates the returned signals, and explicitly names the sibling it is not (multi_vendor_status). An agent can distinguish it from multi_vendor_status, list_vendors and validate_vendor without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use this for one vendor, multi_vendor_status for up to 25, call list_vendors (free) first if the vendor's tracking status is unknown. It also discloses the failure mode (unknown vendors error and are not charged), which is a usage-relevant exclusion.

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