Hive Sla Monitor

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; the description discloses pricing (Tier 2, $0.10 USDC via x402), a disclaimer about no underwriting, and that Hive does not pay claims. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema. Missing details on rate limits or batch size restrictions, but still informative.

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?

Four sentences, each providing unique information: purpose, pricing, disclaimer, and a policy statement. No redundancy or filler.

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?

No output schema exists; description mentions records but does not explain their contents or structure. While parameters are well-documented, a brief note on expected response fields would improve completeness.

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 description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Read', resource 'breach records', and scope 'for a registered monitor'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like sla_register (which creates a monitor) and sla_status (which checks current status).

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?

Implicitly suggests the monitor must be registered first, but does not explicitly guide when to use vs alternatives. No mention of when not to use or alternative tools for status checks.

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?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: probing schedule (60s), read-only HTTP, timeout (8s), uptime/latency recording, cost ($0.01 USDC via x402), and disclaimers (observation only, no underwriting). This is comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, yet covers purpose, behavior, schedule, cost, and disclaimers. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description provides complete context for the registration action: how probing works, cost, rolling window, and limitations. The sibling tools cover status and breaches, so this description is self-sufficient for its purpose.

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 each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Register a public health endpoint') and the resource ('for SLA observation'). It explains the probing mechanism (60s schedule, read-only HTTP) and records metrics, distinguishing it from siblings like sla_breach_history or sla_status.

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 usage for registering endpoints but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (sla_breach_history, sla_status, sla_unregister). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use is provided.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description states 'Observation only' indicating a read-only, non-destructive operation. It also mentions cost, but lacks details on error handling or output format.

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, direct and efficient. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has no output schema and the description does not specify the return format. The agent may not know what to expect after invocation, though the purpose is straightforward.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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 specifies the verb ('Read') and the resource ('current observed uptime and p95 latency for a registered monitor'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools that handle registration or breach history.

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 mentions 'Observation only' and the cost implication, which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with siblings like sla_breach_history.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It explains the deactivation effect (shim stops probing), that it is free, and that records are retained. Missing details like reversibility or idempotency, but overall good.

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, front-loading the action and then stating side effects. 'Free' is extraneous but not harmful. Very concise.

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 simplicity (one required string parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and retention policy. It is fairly complete, though synchronous nature and error states are not mentioned.

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% for the single 'monitor_id' parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's description, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool deactivates a monitor to stop probing. It is a specific verb+resource ('deactivate a monitor') and distinguishes from siblings: sla_register (creation), sla_status (checking), sla_breach_history (history).

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 usage when wanting to stop probing, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though siblings are implied in context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.