Everything that has changed across the caller’s private watchlist since a given date: withdrawals, licence changes, advisories, archived repositories and runtimes going out of support. Requires a key; see https://sighttrue.com/pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (key) and the scope (private watchlist), and lists the types of changes included. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe output format or pagination, or mention rate limits or other behavioral traits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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 sentence that efficiently covers the tool's function, the types of changes, and the required key. It is not overly verbose, though the list of change types adds length. The inclusion of a pricing link is useful but slightly extraneous. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and no annotations, the description provides a good overview of what constitutes a 'change' and mentions the key requirement. However, it lacks details on the response structure, potential errors, and edge cases (e.g., what happens if no changes exist). It is sufficient for basic selection but not fully complete for invocation.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify the 'since' parameter. It does say 'since a given date', giving meaning to the parameter. However, it does not specify the date format, whether it is required (schema says optional), or the behavior when omitted. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it lists all changes on the caller's private watchlist since a given date, enumerating specific change types (withdrawals, licence changes, advisories, archived repositories, runtimes going out of support). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_add (which adds items) and diff_since (which compares repositories).
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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when you need a summary of changes across a watchlist since a date. It also notes the key requirement, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.