list_monitor_subscriptionsLists account-scoped Base Sepolia monitor subscriptions without changing monitoring or payment state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 'without changing monitoring or payment state' clause mainly reinforces that safety profile. The description adds useful scoping but does not disclose return format or pagination behavior, which remains a minor gap for a listing 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?
A single front-loaded sentence states the action, scope, and non-mutating guarantee with no wasted words. Every phrase adds meaningful signal.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with rich safety annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and at what scope. No invocation detail is missing, and the return intent is clear from 'Lists ... subscriptions'.
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 no parameters to document, so the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and scope rather than input details.
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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' with an explicit resource 'monitor subscriptions' and a precise scope 'account-scoped Base Sepolia'. It distinguishes the tool from mutation siblings by explicitly stating it changes no monitoring or payment state.
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 clearly establishes when to use it: when listing account-scoped subscriptions on Base Sepolia, with a read-only guarantee. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_monitor_subscription or list_monitor_a2a_endpoints, but the context is clear and no exclusion is needed for a 0-parameter list.
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.