request_monitoringAsk RivalSweeper to add a domain to monitoring. Free, but requires an account with a positive prepaid balance. First data typically lands within 24-72h.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to start monitoring |
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 that the tool is free but requires prepaid balance, and that data takes 24-72h. It does not detail potential side effects (e.g., recurring cost implications) but covers key behavioral aspects for a request tool.
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, no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, with key constraints (free, prepaid, timing) in the second sentence. Every word adds value.
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 simplicity (one required param, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential context: what it does, cost, account requirement, and timing. It lacks mention of confirmation or error behavior but is adequate for the scope.
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 the single parameter ('domain') with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's 'Domain to start monitoring'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action: 'Ask RivalSweeper to add a domain to monitoring.' It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('domain to monitoring'), which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools that are all 'get_*' retrieval tools.
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 says it is free but requires an account with positive prepaid balance and that first data arrives in 24-72h. It provides usage context and constraints, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools. The distinction from read-only siblings is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of competitive intelligence: coverage, snapshot, price, history, promotions, readiness, and monitoring request. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a 'get_' prefix pattern, but 'request_monitoring' uses 'request_'. This slight inconsistency is justified by the different action type (request vs. retrieve), but still deviates from the predominant convention.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a competitive intelligence server. Each tool serves a distinct need without being overwhelming or too few.
The tools cover the main competitive signals: snapshot, price, history, promotions, readiness, and domain monitoring. Minor gaps like listing all monitored domains are absent, but the core workflows are complete.