list_monitor_alertsLists structured alerts belonging only to the authenticated monitor account. This tool never sends notifications or performs wallet actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| severity | No | ||
| caseStatus | No | ||
| walletAddress | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond those by explicitly stating 'never sends notifications or performs wallet actions' and tying the data to the authenticated monitor account, which clarifies auth-scoped behavior and potential side-effect concerns.
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 no filler. It front-loads the primary action and ownership scope, then adds a precise safety clarification. 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 simple read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description plus schema is minimally viable: the agent knows the operation is safe, account-scoped, and filterable. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanations, the description leaves gaps around return shape, pagination behavior, and how filter parameters combine, so it is not fully complete.
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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the four parameters or their filtering behavior. The parameter names and enum constraints provide some meaning, but the description adds nothing about how limit, severity, caseStatus, or walletAddress affect the returned alerts.
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 names a specific verb ('Lists'), a resource ('structured alerts'), and an ownership scope ('only to the authenticated monitor account'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also explicitly distinguishes the operation from notification-sending and wallet actions, and the plural 'alerts' contrasts with the sibling get_monitor_alert.
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 offers useful context about scope ('only to the authenticated monitor account') and side-effect safety, but it never tells the agent when to prefer this tool over get_monitor_alert or how to choose between list_monitor_alerts and update_monitor_alert_status. The usage guidance is therefore implicit rather than explicit.
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 pairs a single verb with a distinct resource or action, and descriptions explicitly separate state-changing, state-free, verification, and list/get operations. Even similar tools like the two challenge creators are clearly differentiated by challenge type (DNS TXT vs endpoint), so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using clear verbs like create, get, list, register, stop, update, and verify. The monitor_ prefix is used uniformly for monitor-related resources, while distinct domains such as risk and capabilities have their own readable nouns.
At 17 tools, the set is slightly heavier than the typical well-scoped range, but each tool covers a distinct operation across subscriptions, endpoints, alerts, policy evaluation, and risk verification. The count is reasonable given the breadth of the platform.
Core read and write operations exist for subscriptions, endpoints, and alerts, but lifecycle coverage has notable gaps: there is no endpoint get/update/delete, no subscription activation/resume, and no way to enable delivery after verification. Several workflows end at stopped or pending states unless external actions occur.