Watch Address in ORDnet Index

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only), the description adds behavioral detail: the index seeds the address immediately via WhatsOnChain as an outpoint hint, verifies UTXOs with ORDnet's own node, and tracks in real time via the tip-follower. This gives useful transparency about the internal mechanism without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a concise explanatory paragraph about the seeding and tracking mechanism, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, usage context, parameters, and return type. The return statement ('Watchlist registration result from the index') is vague, but given the tool's simplicity and the provided annotations, the overall context is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section essentially mirrors the schema (address is 'BSV address to watch', label with default 'mcp'). It adds no significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Register a BSV address in ORDnet's own UTXO index watchlist' – a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on watchlist registration for instant first queries, which no other sibling tool addresses.

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 use this tool versus relying on auto-registration: 'this tool lets an agent pre-register addresses so that first query is instant.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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