Days between an advisory being published and a release appearing that postdates it, per package and as a distribution. Requires a key; see https://sighttrue.com/pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name as the registry spells it. | |
| registry | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some behavioral context beyond the schema by defining the exact time window (advisory published to postdating release) and the 'per package and distribution' output scope. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., packages with no advisories, multiple releases) or output format, and with no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden but only partially meets it.
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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core metric and the key requirement without extraneous information. The pricing link is useful and does not detract from the main message.
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 provides the essential context for the tool's function and authentication requirement, which is sufficient for a straightforward metric tool. However, the absence of any registry parameter clarification prevents it from being fully complete for invocation without additional assumptions.
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 only 50% (name is described, registry is not). The description does not add any parameter-specific details, such as acceptable registry values or how the package name should be formatted, leaving a clear gap in understanding the registry parameter.
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 explicitly defines the tool's purpose: calculating the number of days between advisory publication and a subsequent release, offered per package and as a distribution. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like advisory_severity or check_* tools, which target other aspects of advisory/package data.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as advisory_severity or explain_finding. The only practical note is the key requirement, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to sibling tools for comparison.
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 targets a distinct query type: package status, stack review, provider incidents, model pricing, watchlist changes, etc. Even similar-sounding tools like check_package and check_stack are clearly differentiated by granularity (single package vs. whole manifest). The descriptions further remove ambiguity.
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are imperative verb_noun (check_package, find_model, watch_add) while many are noun phrases (advisory_severity, provider_incidents, runtime_deadlines). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun style, so there is noticeable inconsistency.
At 31 tools, the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold (25+). While the domain is broad, the agent must navigate a large surface with many similarly scoped utilities, making selection harder. A more consolidated set (e.g., grouping related readings) would improve appropriateness.
The tool surface covers a wide range of supply-chain intelligence: package advisories, provider status, model pricing, runtime EOL, and watchlist changes. The only notable gap is lifecycle management for the private watchlist (e.g., no watch_remove or watch_list), but the overall coverage is strong.