Cancel an active monitoring watch by its ID. Stops price or balance alerts immediately and is safe to call multiple times; the prepaid monitoring period is not refunded.
Stop one watch. Free, idempotent, and never refunded: the days were bought up front.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Watch id returned by watch_create |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and meaningfully discloses that the operation is free, idempotent, and never refunded because days were prepaid. It does not cover all side effects or error behavior, but the core behavioral contract is clearly stated.
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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place, adding behavioral and billing context compactly.
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 simple one-parameter, idempotent delete/stop operation, the description covers purpose, cost behavior, idempotency, and refund policy. It does not describe return values or error semantics, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that this is not a blocking gap.
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 single parameter id is fully documented in the schema with 'Watch id returned by watch_create', so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds context about prepaid days but no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb-object pair ('Stop one watch') and clearly scopes it to exactly one watch, distinguishing it from watch_create and watch_get. The action is immediately identifiable without needing the tool name.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. 'Free, idempotent' describes safety and cost but not the contextual decision of when to call watch_delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.