browser_web3_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'logs all wallet RPC calls' but gives no details on side effects of 'installing' monitoring, whether it modifies the existing window.ethereum object, how logs are accessed, or if the behavior is reversible. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs an installation-like action.

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: two short sentences that immediately convey the core action and purpose. No filler words, and the key functionality is front-loaded. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly adequate but leaves gaps about operational context—such as whether monitoring starts immediately, how logs are returned, and whether there are any prerequisites. It is a minimum viable description but lacks depth for a tool that modifies browser behavior.

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 covers the only parameter 'slot' with a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the slot parameter, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for well-documented schemas.

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 a specific action ('Install window.ethereum monitoring') and its effect ('Logs all wallet RPC calls'). It identifies a distinct resource (window.ethereum) and differentiates from sibling tools like browser_ws_monitor or browser_network_requests by focusing on wallet RPC calls.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to monitor Ethereum wallet RPC calls) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on scenarios where browser_network_requests or browser_inject_signer might be more appropriate, leaving usage partially implied.

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