TWZRD Agent Intelligence

twzrd_watch_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List active re-call watches for your agent wallet.

Each watch shows the seller, current score/decision, and recheck_after_unix
timestamp (untrusted V5/V6 hint). evaluateRecall / shouldRecheckTrusted is
the consumer gate; do not treat due / shouldRecheck as a trusted allow.
Control-proof authenticated (fail closed) via signature + timestamp.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`signature`	Yes	base58 ed25519 signature made with the payer wallet's key over the twzrd-watch/v1 message for action=list: the seven lines [twzrd-watch/v1, list, str(timestamp), payer_wallet, '', '', ''] joined by newlines.
`timestamp`	Yes	Unix seconds used in the signed message (freshness window: 300s).
`payer_wallet`	Yes	Your agent wallet address.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / signature

Added value: +{
+  "description": "base58 ed25519 signature made with the payer wallet's key over the twzrd-watch/v1 message for action=list: the seven lines [twzrd-watch/v1, list, str(timestamp), payer_wallet, '', '', ''] joined by newlines.",
+  "title": "Signature",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / timestamp

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Unix seconds used in the signed message (freshness window: 300s).",
+  "title": "Timestamp"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "payer_wallet"
-]New value: +[
+  "payer_wallet",
+  "signature",
+  "timestamp"
+]

First observedJul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), yet the description adds material context: control-proof authentication via signature + timestamp with fail-closed behavior, and the warning that recheck_after_unix is an untrusted V5/V6 hint. These are genuinely non-obvious behavioral traits beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers return contents, the consumption caveat, and the auth model in short sentences. Dense but each line earns its place; internal jargon (V5/V6) is the only minor drag.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully spelled out, yet the description still names the key fields. Auth requirements and the untrusted-hint caveat close the main gaps; only the explicit alternative-routing guidance is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the signature message format and freshness window already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'signature + timestamp' at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List active re-call watches') scoped to 'your agent wallet,' which is unambiguous against read-oriented siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with twzrd_watch_add/remove, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives important interpretive guidance ('do not treat due / shouldRecheck as a trusted allow' and points to evaluateRecall / shouldRecheckTrusted as the real gate), which steers correct downstream use. But it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives such as twzrd_watch_add or twzrd_watch_remove, leaving the primary when-to-use question to inference.

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

All TWZRD Agent Intelligence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.