TWZRD Agent Intelligence

twzrd_watch_remove

Deactivate a re-call watch by ID. payer_wallet must match the owner.

Control-proof authenticated (fail closed): signature + timestamp prove the
caller holds the payer wallet's key before the row is touched.

Input Schema

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

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=remove: the seven lines [twzrd-watch/v1, remove, str(timestamp), payer_wallet, '', '', str(watch_id)] 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: -[
-  "watch_id",
-  "payer_wallet"
-]New value: +[
+  "watch_id",
+  "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 only cover openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds meaningful context: the operation is control-proof authenticated, fails closed, and requires a signature + timestamp proving key possession before the row is touched. It stops short of 5 because it does not state the failure mode concretely (error vs no-op) or that deactivation is state-changing and not reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint before the authentication detail; nothing is padded. The only minor waste is restating the payer_wallet ownership rule already present in the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and all four required parameters are documented in the schema. The description completes the picture by covering the auth model, though it omits any note on idempotency or what the caller observes after a successful deactivation.

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%, including the exact signed-message format, the freshness window, and the owner-match requirement for payer_wallet. The description's "payer_wallet must match the owner" largely restates what the schema already documents, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 ("Deactivate") and resource ("re-call watch") with an ID scoping qualifier, which cleanly separates it from the watch_add and watch_list siblings by action. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 supplies a real prerequisite ("payer_wallet must match the owner") but never states when this tool should be chosen over twzrd_watch_add, twzrd_watch_list, or any alternative, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied by the verb rather than guided.

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.