PulseWatch Vendor Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds cost/behavioral context the annotations do not: it is free, costs 'one request to PulseWatch, no payment'. It stops short of describing pagination limits or result volume.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the cost signal and the core action. The free/no-payment message is stated twice ('Free' and 'no payment'), a small redundancy, though the closing clause also conveys the one-request cost.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (slug, name, category) and paging behavior. For a trivial two-param read-only lookup this is nearly sufficient; total-count or page-size expectations are the only unaddressed item.

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 both 'page' and 'search' are already documented with defaults and examples. The description only restates 'paged' and the search intent, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list/search vendors) plus the returned fields (slug, name, category) and paging behavior. The routing cue 'before paying' separates it from the paid siblings (pricing, validate_vendor) without the agent needing to open another schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use it before paying to confirm a vendor is tracked and to get its exact slug.' That gives a clear trigger and payoff, but it names no alternative tool or when-not condition (e.g. how it differs from validate_vendor or vendor_status).

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?

Annotations cover read-only, idempotency and open-world scope, and the description still adds non-obvious behavior: data is read live from PulseWatch, untracked names do not abort the call, and the call is not charged when nothing is tracked or all lookups fail. Billing terms (flat $0.05 USDC via x402, payment in _meta["x402/payment"]) are disclosed in a way annotations never could.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, with sibling routing and caveats following. The final sentence chains read-only, price, and payment metadata into one semicolon-separated run, which is dense but each clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys what comes back (per-vendor status plus a not-operational list), that data is live, and how partial failures and billing behave. Nothing material for a correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents 1-25 entries and that entries may be names, slugs or domains. The description only restates the 25 cap and adds that unmatched names are reported, without clarifying slug vs domain formatting, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource (check status of up to 25 SaaS/cloud vendors in one call), the question it answers ("is my stack down?"), and the returned shape (per-vendor status plus a list of non-operational ones). It also names the sibling vendor_status and the condition separating them.

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?

Explicit when-to-use framing ("is my stack down?" aggregate checks) and an explicit alternative with a selection rule: use vendor_status for incident detail on a single vendor. It also pre-empts a common failure case by noting untracked names are reported rather than fatal.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those hints: that the call is free, makes no network request, and requires no payment — which explains why a pricing tool exists in a payment-gated toolset.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact ('Free') is front-loaded before the return-field list. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields. It stops short of describing the shape or currency of the price values, a minor gap for an otherwise complete zero-argument definition.

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?

With zero parameters there is nothing for the schema to document beyond an empty object, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this explicitly with 'No input', removing any doubt about required arguments.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the price of every paid tool'), then enumerates the exact fields returned (payment network, receiving address, data source). The four sibling tools are all vendor/status oriented, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to pick for pricing 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?

The text signals applicability indirectly ('Free', 'No input, no network request, no payment'), which tells the agent this is a zero-cost, zero-argument lookup. It never states when to choose this over alternatives or what conditions select it, so usage is only implied.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds non-redundant behavioral facts: no network request, no payment, no existence check. It also discloses the tool's central limitation (it does not confirm the vendor is tracked), which is exactly the context an agent needs to avoid over-trusting a positive result.

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, front-loaded with the cost signal ('Free.') and the offline/format-only constraint before the alternative. No filler; each clause delivers a distinct, decision-relevant fact.

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 single-parameter, annotation-rich tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, boundaries, cost, and the rerouting case. It hints at a return ('see how it will be matched') but doesn't describe the match output, a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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% and the schema already enumerates the accepted formats (name, slug, domain) with examples. The description restates 'name, slug or domain' without adding format syntax or validation rules beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (validate/check) and resource (vendor name, slug or domain) plus the scope of the check ('well-formed' and 'how it will be matched'). It also names and routes away from the sibling list_vendors, so an agent can distinguish it from vendor_status/list_vendors without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for this tool (format-only, offline) and names the alternative plus its selecting condition ('use list_vendors to confirm the vendor is actually tracked'). The boundary between format validation and existence verification is unambiguous.

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?

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing cost ($0.01 USDC per call), the x402 payment location in _meta["x402/payment"], and the exact non-charge conditions (unknown vendor, invalid input, upstream failure). The read-only hint is restated but the billing semantics are new and decision-critical.

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 capability and fields come first, then routing to alternatives, then cost rules — a well front-loaded order with no filler. It is dense (four sentences plus parentheticals) but each sentence carries a distinct operational fact.

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, yet the description enumerates the returned signals and their freshness, so an agent knows what it gets for its money. Combined with the payment and error semantics, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents the accepted name/slug/domain forms, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by specifying the consequence of a bad value: unknown vendors return an error and are not charged, which affects how an agent should validate before calling.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('check whether one SaaS or cloud vendor is down right now') plus the exact payload fields returned (status, confidence, incidents, uptime, freshness). Explicitly scoped to a single vendor, which separates it cleanly from multi_vendor_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?

States the selection rule directly: use this for one vendor, use multi_vendor_status for up to 25. Adds a prerequisite route via the free list_vendors for uncertain names. Nothing is left to inference.

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