x402 watch — poll event log (free)

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that nothing is lost between polls, cursors are global sequences, and cancelled watches stay readable. This provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond a simple read operation.

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 a single paragraph of about 10 sentences, packing substantial information without excessive verbosity. Could benefit from light structuring (e.g., separating streams), but remains clear and focused.

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, but description covers both event streams, cursor usage, reliability guarantees, lifecycle behavior, and push reconciliation. This provides all necessary context for correct usage without needing to infer.

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 description adds valuable context: since and watch_since are cursors from previous polls, and secret/watch_id come from creation. It explains cursor advancement and global sequence nature, exceeding schema descriptions.

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 the tool reads an append-only event log for an x402 watch, returning two streams. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create, cancel, edit, renew) by focusing on polling and event retrieval.

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 explains when to poll, how to use cursors, and that cancelled watches remain readable. It mentions push delivery reconciliation, but does not explicitly list scenarios where alternative tools should be used instead.

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