Create a Watchtower API key. The key starts with a $0 balance — fund it by card at /v1/topup before use, or pay per call via x402. Store the key; paid tools require a funded one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the key starts with a $0 balance, requires funding before use, and that paid tools require a funded key. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 concise, with three sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by essential usage details. No wasted 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: creation, funding, and usage. It could mention what the response contains (e.g., the key value), but the lack of output schema and simple nature make this adequate.
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 has one optional parameter 'note' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the 'note' parameter, but since it's optional and likely a label, the schema's maxLength provides some guidance. The description adds no extra meaning, so a baseline 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 tool creates a Watchtower API key, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on API key creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to create an API key for Watchtower. It also explains the funding requirement and mentions alternatives like paying per call via x402, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: screening names, crypto addresses, batches, PII scanning, jurisdiction checks, LEI resolution, API key creation, watch management, etc. Overlap between screen_name and screen_names_batch is intentional (single vs batch) and well-differentiated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., screen_name, resolve_lei, check_jurisdiction). No mixing of conventions, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain. Each tool addresses a specific need (screening, validation, LEI lookup, etc.) without unnecessary duplication or omission.
Covers most core workflows: name screening, batch, crypto, jurisdiction, LEI, PII scanning, validation, API key management, and watches. Minor gap: no explicit watch deletion or update tool, but watches are created with a max 90-day lifetime, so deletion may be intentional.