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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that the tool only validates and returns a request, and that it does not settle x402 or create the watch. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 with no filler: the first states the core action and output, and the second states essential limitations. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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?

The description is complete enough for a read-only preparation tool: it names the input context (Algorand USDC payment), the output (an HTTP/x402 request), and key boundary behaviors. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact returned request structure could be helpful, but the current wording covers what an agent needs to call it 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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with types, formats, lengths, and meanings. The description adds global context (Algorand USDC, expected future payment) but no per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific action ('Validate one expected future Algorand USDC payment') and a precise deliverable ('return the exact RoundWatch HTTP/x402 request to create a durable watch'). It also distinguishes itself from watch execution by explicitly noting it does not settle the payment or create the watch, which separates it from sibling tools like 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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to prepare and validate a watch request while explicitly excluding payment settlement and watch creation. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use conditions, but the boundary statements make the intended use fairly 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 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.