RoundWatch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting that reads are 'free' and that results include 'verified on-chain evidence,' giving the agent a clearer picture of cost and return scope.

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 compact sentences deliver the action, scope, prerequisite, cost, and read-only nature with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded and 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, this description is complete: it states what is read, that the ID must be existing, that the operation is read-only, and that it is free. No output schema exists, but the description gives a sufficient high-level view of the return content.

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 single parameter watchId is already described as 'Durable watch ID returned after successful activation.' The description echoes 'existing' and 'durable' but adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('durable state and verified on-chain evidence') for an existing RoundWatch watch ID. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, especially prepare_watch, by emphasizing read-only access to already-activated watches.

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 establishes a clear precondition: the watch ID must already exist and be durable. It implies this tool is for inspecting an active watch rather than creating one, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond these: it explicitly states the tool is 'free', returns an 'exact HTTP request', and 'never signs, pays, or retries the paid create'. This clarifies the operation's side-effect-free nature and its output format, which is useful beyond the annotation flags. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The core action ('Validate and return the exact free HTTP request') is front-loaded, followed by the relevant scenario and a clear statement of what the tool does not do. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description clearly states that it returns an 'exact free HTTP request', which indicates the return type. It explains the recovery use case and the limits (only confirmed-settlement watches). It doesn't specify the HTTP request format or error handling, but given the parameter schema already documents inputs, this is adequate. Slight gap: it doesn't state what happens if the watch is not recoverable, but the phrase 'Validate and return' implies validation errors might surface.

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 each parameter already has a descriptive explanation and constraints (e.g., idempotencyKey, atomicAmount, addresses). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate and return') and resource ('exact free HTTP request used to recover an existing watch'), with a clear trigger scenario ('after a paid create may have succeeded but the caller lost the returned watchId'). It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on recovery rather than creation (prepare_watch) or querying (get_watch), making tool selection unambiguous.

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 specifies precisely when to use this tool: when a paid create may have succeeded but the watchId was lost. It also notes that confirmed-settlement watches remain recoverable even after terminal expiry or indeterminate completion. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use prepare_watch for new watches'), but the recovery scenario is clear enough to guide an agent.

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 mark it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. Description adds meaningful context that it does not settle the x402 payment and does not itself create the watch, though auth requirements and validation failure behavior remain unstated.

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 core action and result, followed by the key non-effect caveat. 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 rich schema and annotations, description covers the main behavioral boundaries and states the return artifact despite no output schema. It could say more about validation failure or error shape, but is largely complete for a preparation 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 coverage is 100% and all five parameters have detailed descriptions, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or meaning beyond schema.

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?

Specifies verb+resource: validate an expected future Algorand USDC payment and return the exact HTTP/x402 request to create a durable watch. It clarifies it does not settle payment or create the watch, but does not distinguish from siblings such as prepare_recovery or get_watch.

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?

Implies use when preparing a watch request for a future payment and explicitly states it does not settle or create the watch. However, it does not name alternatives or specify when to choose prepare_recovery or get_watch over 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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only and free.' It adds context about the returned content (contract, asset, price, limits, links) which is beyond annotations, helping the agent understand what to expect.

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 with no redundancy. The action and the target resource are stated upfront, followed by a safety note.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the expected return items (network, contract, asset, price, limits, docs). This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect from the call.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the tool takes no input. The schema is already complete, and the description adds nothing needed for parameter handling.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('live RoundWatch network, x402 service contract, USDC asset, price, limits, and documentation links'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools get_watch and prepare_watch, which are likely focused on watch 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 implies this tool is for retrieving service-level information, separate from watch operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings, leaving inference to the agent.

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